sanjana

tl;dr. Privilege is an advantage. This advantage can be earned or given, and it can be a fair advantage or an unreasonable advantage. More importance should be given to how privilege is used, and not where it comes from.

Some people earn their privilege. Some people are born into it. In this generation, most people are born with this privilege. Privilege is having an advantage over someone else in a significant manner. This advantage exists in everything. It exists in the race, gender, age, location, and wealth.

Racial privilege, such as white privilege, is not earned. It has been created through brainwashing society and colonialism. Racial privilege was created through centuries-old racism and has been used to inflict atrocities on people of color. This privilege has negative connotations because it creates a false sense of entitlement and self-worth.

Straight, or heterosexual privilege is not earned. It is a privilege somebody is born into. This privilege was created very long ago and was not earned. These privileges exist because of how much better off they are compared to people of other sexualities. This privilege is a strong indication of how society can accept certain groups and ostracize others. Again, this privilege enables people to treat people of other sexualities negatively and allows them to get away with certain actions members of other sexualities would not otherwise.

However, because of these two dominating categories of privilege, others get overlooked and treated negatively. Unlike racial or straught privilege, monetary privilege is earned. Mocking or disrespecting people who are wealthy is disrespectful. Some businessmen and CEOs exploit minority populations and those who need money. However, some earn their money through good-fashioned hard work. Using negative blanket statements on wealthy people is not okay.

Some privilege is given at birth, and some are earned. Hating privilege is not okay. Calling out those who misuse or do not use their privilege to help those without the same privileges is reasonable. Sometimes, this distinction is blurred and can create more harm than good.

tl;dr. Public marriage proposals ruin the intimacy of the question unless the venue holds sentimental value. They create a high-pressure environment that signals insecurity about their relationship and its future. It obliges an acceptance of the proposal even if that is not what they want. It creates unnecessary shame and tension between the onlookers and the couple if the proposal is rejected.

Public proposals are getting outdated for several reasons. They rarely yield good results. One of the major problems with public proposals is the lack of intimacy. Unless this public venue holds significant sentimental value, the proposal just becomes a spectacle. It becomes a source of entertainment for onlookers instead of a private, intimate moment between the partners.

Public proposals also create an environment of high pressure. Marrying someone is a lifelong commitment, and it should not be made in a high-pressure environment. One user on Reddit said, “When you're recovering from crippling social anxiety and your boyfriend proposes to you at the Trevi Fountain surrounded by applauding people, it makes you question how well he knows you.” There are too many distractions to think through this question properly.

If, overcoming all these obstacles, the person decides to reject the proposal, things get very awkward. The spectators suffer from second-hand embarrassment, and the person proposing will obviously be disheartened. The person rejecting the proposal will probably carry that guilt around for a very long time.

Public proposals create an obligation to say yes, which can lead to problems in the relationship. There is no shame in saying no to a proposal, but when everyone is smiling and cheering, it can create this sense of wrongdoing if they choose to reject the proposal.

There is little room for the relationship to recover after a proposal is rejected. This happened in public, so the rejection was a spectacle. The proposer will feel ashamed, embarrassed, and rejected by the person they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with. The ‘proposee’ will also feel the same emotions and maybe resentful or even overly apologetic.

Moreover, surveys consistently find that over 80% of people prefer intimate proposals.

Lisa Hoplock is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Manitoba, Although she admits wedding proposals have been the subject of very few research studies, those that do indicate towards insecurity. If the person proposing is insecure about the person’s answer, a public environment is more likely to elicit a much-awaited ‘yes’ from their partner.

All things considered, public proposals turn something intimate into a public spectacle, which can very easily turn into rejections.

Making your bed in the morning creates the "foot-in-the-door" concept in social psychology. This means that the first task of the day has already been accomplished. This is a major motivational factor because it creates a domino effect in terms of productivity.

Unlike popular belief, making your bed in the morning is not just "OCD." It is an essential part of sleep hygiene that regulates the sleep cycle and quality of sleep. Studies have also proven that it reduces stress and betters mood.

Keeping your bed tidy and made also adds to the overall aesthetic of the room. A clean and tidy room is advantageous for a clear mind and helps critical thinking and empathizing. It also helps greatly with finding new perspectives.

tl;dr. Pornography is for some teenagers the only form of sexual education they receive. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing. Porn, when used properly can be educational and also aid in masturbation. However, it can have negative effects if coupled with mental disorders and abnormalities.

First of all, pornography is only bad if it is unethical or involves minors/children. In most industries, and in the pornographic industry itself, porn is considered an art form because most of it is pure acting.

Teenagers know that porn is acting. Unlike what some Asian governments use as cover for censorship, pornography does not cause sexual violence or any violence at all. Sexual violence is widely correlated with a lack of sex education.

Porn is also one of the very few sexual displays for people of the LGBTQ+ community. Society is still not as accepting of the members of the community, and these are the few avenues where pleasure is derived and given to people of all groups and preferences.

However, pornography addiction combined with mental health disorders can be harmful. Ted Bundy is an excellent example of the harmful effects it can have. Ted Bundy was allegedly addicted to pornography and was one of the main reasons he felt compelled to rape and murder a certain kind of woman.

Pornography, just like everything else, is okay to use when regulated.

I agree with this opinion to some extent. I believe that music is a self-soothing tool, just as much as it is a form of expression and artistic ability. Sometimes, the need to self-soothe, or wallow in sadness and nostalgia after a life-altering event is more important than finding new music. A certain kind of music or some songs can be the balance to the ever-changing surroundings of life.

However, music is as therapeutic as art therapy, or any other kind of therapy. So, music has different impacts on our brain and can help create a broader spectrum of appreciation.

Practicing the same advice you give others can be quite difficult. That does not mean you should not give advice; Sometimes, a person advises to help someone else. If they recommend working out every day for fitness, but they do not do it themselves, that is okay. This is because the advice they are giving out is not hypocritical. They may have been trying to work out, but work gets in the way. That is their weakness, and they may understand that. So, to help others be motivated to work out, they give that advice.

However, practicing what you preach is definitely a lesson in hypocrisy in subject matters like racism and sexism. If someone preaches the importance of feminism while being sexist themselves, this becomes a big problem because it is an attitude.

Practicing what you preach only becomes hypocritical when not practicing harms someone, like society or your family. If it harms yourself, and you have tried, but things come in the way, it is not hypocrisy.

tl'dr Fairy tales allow children to be children. They allow children to have hope for a wonderful future. Fairy tales have the power to let children dream their very own dream. Robbing them of these precious pleasures would be robbing them of their childlike wonder.

Fairy tales are beacons of hope. They are stories that describe a utopian world where endings are happy. These fairy tales transport you to a land of optimism. Children read fairy tales to help their imaginative minds imagine a much different world.

Classics such as Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, and Pride and Prejudice are stories just like fairy tales. They are stories of fantasy. Fairy tales just give you a guaranteed happy ending. There is nothing wrong with that.

If fairy tales are bad, then so is every rom-com that comes out - even brilliant movies such as Notting Hill. There is nothing wrong with escapism, especially for children. Children have a rare privilege. They do not have to worry about grades, relationships, or any other adulting things. They can revel in these magical worlds.

Most people believe fairy tales are negative because of gender and societal stereotypes. There is an easy fix - remove the stereotypes or change them. Talk to children about these stereotypes at their level. They can enjoy the magic and also know not all witches are ugly, and not all boys are Prince Charming.

When Sleeping Beauty is read in a way that entrances the children and makes their minds travel to a faraway land, it reminds them about asking people if it's okay to kiss them. Remind them that kissing people when they are asleep is not okay.

Fairy tales have the power to let children be children. To let them live in fairy tales, to believe they are princes and princesses. Fairy tales allow children to believe they can be whoever they are. Fairy tales allow children to hold on to those beliefs even when they are older.

Fairy tales do not teach children life always has a happy ending. It teaches hope, little pleasures, and the idea of not giving up. Most fairy tales also have "the moral of the story" situations. Fairy tales are the gateways to every child's imagination.

Age is not just a number in most cases. Age counts the years you have existence. This itself can tell a lot about you. If you were born during the cold war, you may have gone through the Vietnam, Korean war, or been in Afghanistan. You may have been traumatized. You may have been a woman, who was repressed and was fighting for basic things such as jobs.

Age not only changes the way someone views the world, but also can influence their behaviors. Age can influence day-to-day activities such as being able to breathe and can explain rigidity in habits or attitudes.

Age matters when getting married. Idealistic, or extreme optimists will say you get married when it feels right. People who believe that age matters will say that eighteen is too early to get married because most people do not have enough life experience to know what they want from life. This is why most extremely early married couples do not last. This is not a necessity, but definitely a high probability.

Age is a part of someone's personality. Age strongly influences not only someone's political opinions, but people's preferences in food, lifestyles, and social problems. Age influences maturity. People who go through trauma much earlier in their lives will perceive and handle it much differently than other, older ages.

Age is not just a number. Age is an integral part of perception, which defines our reality.

tl;dr. Marriage is outdated. Nobody needs a third party to affirm long-lasting love. Marriage can bring on other societal pressures such as unnecessary parents-in-law and a certain obligation to conform to gender stereotypes.

Marriage is extremely outdated. Marriage is a term that describes a relationship between two people who love each other and plan to spend their lives together. This does not mean they need to be married just to fit this verb's definition or meaning. Marriage means a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together. Today, this means marriage is a plan, a hope. It is not a sure thing.

Nobody needs to stand around a holy fire, in front of a priest or in a courtroom, to declare their love for each other. Nobody needs a third party, in whatever form, to affirm two people’s love for each other. Also, wedding ceremonies mark marriages. It is not a marriage without a wedding ceremony because custom dictates this. Marriage ceremonies are restrictive. It forces social obligations, forces “appropriateness” such as attires and dance etiquette, and makes people spend a lot of money to “maintain their status.”

Marriage is a term for people spending their lives together. It does not have to be a term. Many long-term relationships are successful without marriage. Cohabitation does not necessitate marriage. If someone is in a committed relationship and is happy, they do not need to be categorized.

Marriage was introduced for many reasons in the past. To allow someone to have children, lose their virginity, and trap themselves for the rest of their lives because divorced men and women were considered unworthy. In fact, many Asian cultures use a horrible term called “second hand” to describe divorced individuals. Today, pre-marital children, sexual relationships, and cohabitation, and long-term companionships are prevalent.

Marriage is more a societal construct than a necessity or even a tradition. People should get married if they want to, but not because it is the “right thing to do.” In fact, sometimes, not getting married can be much more beneficial. Today, divorces are extremely common. Marriages are less common.

Marriages and a wedding ceremony are primarily used to force a commitment. People stay together longer in marriages than cohabitation in some countries because of societal pressures - like most Asian societies. Social psychology states that wedding ceremonies and marriages, in general, are used for external motivation. When these commitments are made publicly, like wedding ceremonies to get married, they are pressured or obligated to try their very best to stay together. This same concept can be used by people who cohabitate to have long-lasting relationships.

Marriage, in a lot of countries, means a cage. A cage for someone to give up their dreams. A category where the “right things” are expected. Marriage also brings on extremely unnecessary concepts like “mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law,” which are outdated. They create forced extended families.

Marriage is not a relationship with the person you love but their entire family. Although this could lead to beautiful bonds and friendships, the risks outweigh the rewards. Parents-in-law can destroy marriages. They often pressure their child’s spouse to behave, look, and act a certain way. They can interfere in your marriage. Without a marriage, societal bonds are not placed on the couple.

Couples can live their lives the way they want to, without societal constructs and pressures. Also, most people who are traditional will want to marry. They might even come with other traditional demands that are very negative and have no place in the 21st century. Some of these include conforming to traditional gender roles, wearing extremely modest clothing that a spouse may not want to, and creating a toxic, oppressive home life. This is, of course, absolutely not the case with everyone who wants to marry. However, there are these risks.

Cohabitation is a trump card that almost guarantees a progressive attitude towards equality and acceptance. It is more likely that this couple will be partners, whereas, in a marriage, they may be more traditional. This is not absolute, and there are many happy, equal, kind, and supportive marriages. This is just a risk, especially in arranged marriages. It is not a necessity or even a majority assumption.

Marriages are not necessary, and in fact, outdated because they put people in a box. Marriage is not a requirement to be happy and spend the rest of their life with someone they love. Marriage is a choice, but it is not a concept that is required.

Tl;dr Most, if not all prospective parents who want to adopt need to undergo psychological evaluations. The same rules should apply for parents who are planning to have biological children. These evaluations will test if they are equipped to raise a child. They will not focus on any other factors except their mental health. It will help not only the child’s life but also the parents’ life.

Everyone who wants a family deserves a family. No matter who they are, what they do, who they love, and where they are from. Everyone also deserves a supportive and safe family environment. Parents are a child’s whole life. They set the definition of normal, and the child will grow up to compare all other situations and circumstances to their home life and parents. Parents hold power to shape the future. Parents have the capacity to raise either a brilliant new generation that is caring, kind, and are good people who work towards harmony and acceptance, or entitled, traumatized, abused, and unkind people.

There have been too many parents who have hurt abused, and driven their children to suicide or murder. The famous case of Jennifer Pan who killed her parents because of their severely oppressive and borderline abusive nature, is one such example. Many such examples of parents neglect their children, abusing them sexually, and even killing them. Prospective parents will have the opportunity to address their mental health issues through these evaluations. They will be more confident in raising their children in a way that builds trust, safety, and harmony in their lives.

Many parents could have undetected mental health issues that can lead to them either hurting or severely endangering their children's safety, leading the child to develop disorders such as Multiple Personality Disorder to cope with the trauma. Children should not be born helpless into the world, hoping that their parents will take care of them lovingly and carefully. They should be born into a world with a guarantee that their parents will do the best they can. Doing mental health evaluations strengthens that guarantee and safeguard and betters both the parents’ and child’s lives.

When parents go through psychological evaluations, they can either go through therapy to help them, or they can be cleared to have children right away. Remember, this evaluation will focus on the mental health of their parents. This is not focused on anything else, such as socioeconomic classes. This is solely focused on their mental health.

So far, in most research studies and articles, there is only mention of psychological help needed for parents who have had assisted births. There needs to be a requirement and research and studies for parents who give birth to children themselves because that can be just as challenging. It can create different psychological difficulties, which can be addressed with mental health professionals' help.

These evaluations are not designed to berate anybody but is to prepare and give both the parents and their children the best possible lives Mental health is critical, and paying attention to it is crucial for every person's well-being. This will significantly better parenting and help them cope with stress, increase their tolerance levels, and essentially equip them to be the best parents they can and help build a beautiful life with their children.

Serena is not a dynamic character. It is very easy to forget she is a cruel, selfish person because of the occasional acts of kindness towards June. Serena allowed her husband to rape June. Then she stole the resulting child.

Serena’s delusional sense of sense entitlement is unparalleled. It triumphs any sympathy an audience might feel about her getting shot and becoming infertile. Serena was instrumental in robbing people of their human rights.

She is incredibly selfish - to a level where it is abnormal. She is unfeeling. She held June’s hands when Fred raped her. This was when she was pregnant. She deserves no sympathy from any audience.

Serena came up with the concept of Gilead. She traumatized hundreds of people. She is one of the coldest and most hateful people in Gilead.

tl:dr; Judith Grime was brought into a world of cruelty, the survival of the fittest, and death. She did not have to suffer like that. She did not need the trauma. It was almost cruel that an innocent child was brought into a world where everyone only defends themselves and maybe two others.

Judith Grimes was brought into a world of suffering. She was born into the apocalypse. Zombies wanted to kill her and everyone she could ever love. She would never learn what it means to love unconditionally. She would only know how she needs to protect herself. No matter what.

She had to learn how to kill at an age no one should see someone dead. Not if they can help it. A kid should not have to murder someone. She did not need that trauma in her life. Her character was overly romanticized. In reality, she led a too terrifying life.

Her every cry was a danger to her and everyone around her. She could have had everyone killed in a minute. Worse, she would have to live a life of fear. She would not know happiness or safety. She would only know how to run. How to keep running.

It is because the Walking Dead is a fictional show that she lived that long. No producer wants to let a baby die. No audience wants to see a baby die. Never. In reality, she would have died within days. No parents should want to bring a life into a world as cruel as is depicted in the Walking Dead.

If Judith were introduced in the later seasons, it would have been more reasonable. By then, they would be prepared. They would be stronger. They would have more people to look out for the baby.

She did not have to suffer. She did not have to live a ‘life’ without her mother or father. It was unfair for Judith Grimes to have to live in such a world. It was a hard decision to bring her into the world. But it was also the wrong one. Giddy optimism can lead to a great downfall in a world like the Walking Dead.

Beauty and the Beast (1991) is arguably one of the most feminist Disney movies of the 20th century. Belle is a reader. She loves books and loves narratives. She is the odd one out in her village and owns up to it.

Belle sees the kindness in the Beast. She falls in love with him much after he kidnaps her. He also saves her from wolves. This shows that he is not a cruel captor. Clearly, there is just something wrong with him. In the end, no one begs another to stay. There are mutual love and respect for each other. They gave each other what they wanted. Both of them saved each other.

Her relationship with the Beast is not co-dependent at all. She loves him after exploring everything about him. She is a kind-hearted person but not dependent. In fact, she is fiercely independent. In a village that only acknowledges her beauty, she chooses to reject Gaston and continue longing for adventure.

The movie is incredibly empowering because of the contrasts in the scenes. The villagers’ reactions and obsession with Belle’s independence, intellect, and self-dignity show how much she was equal to a man.

Changing your hair is a feeble way to express yourself. Hair is too generic. Everyone has individual differences in their behavior. Still, most people choose to get very similar haircuts. A layered haircut says nothing about who a person is.

Colored hair can express but to a minimal extent. This extent is also plagued with stereotypes. Generally, people with short multi-colored hair are considered punks and rebels. That is not true. Expression needs to be in the hands of the ‘expressor.’ Most of the time, we go to the hairdresser to get our hair done. Hairdressers cannot express who we are. Only we can.

Most boys have very short hair. We can rarely differentiate a difference in hairstyles. Arguably, that minimal expression can only happen with people who have long hair. Hair is not symbolic of anything. It tells extremely little about a person. Poetry, artwork, book, and movie choices say much more than hair ever will. Tattoos are also a better way of expression.

I think we are not talking about a short bias for anyone. Skin color and body types are the most dominating conversation topics for outer beauty. I would argue that height bias is not only present for men, but for all genders.

Height comes under the category of conventional beauty standards. Most people find leggy girls beautiful and tall, broad-shouldered men handsome. This is because of evolutionary traits and custom practices. Taller, skinnier women are seen as delicate, beautiful, and fragile. Tall men are seen as more masculine.

However, these days, everyone is expected to be tall. The modeling industry is the perfect example of this. Women are expected to be a certain height or they cannot even enter the modeling world. Height bias is not talked about universally for all genders and not just for men.

It is very unfair to raise a child in a particular religion. Children should have the right to understand different religions. Every religion has its own set of guidelines and beliefs.

We don't choose our career without exploring all options. Similarly, children should be taught different kinds of options. The family has an influence, but they cannot decide for the child. Children can participate in religious activities, but they should be encouraged to practice different religious practices till they have sound knowledge of all religion-related choices.

Children should learn about atheism as well because it is a religious choice. Religion dictates how to live your life. Children should decide how to live their lives and not their parents. By high school, you have a well-rounded education. This gives you the ability to make informed decisions best suited to who you are.

Growing up with specific guidelines from religious scriptures are very difficult to change later in life. Teaching values and moral beliefs are very different than asking you to believe in a particular God or religion blindly.

tl;dr: In mixed residential schools, boarders are often ill-treated. Their house guardians are unhappy people who hate the students. Students tend to be scarred by the abusive restrictions of the boarding school.
NOTE- This is not in all boarding schools in the world. This happens more in certain countries or with certain socio-economic backgrounds.

Boarding schools in mixed residential schools are rigid institutions. These schools are factories that pump out emotionally scarred, traumatized students. Under the name of discipline, they impose strict rules.

Children almost always cannot wear what they want. Under the garb of modesty, their dressing is monitored. The house-parents or adult 'caretakers' are among the worse people to be around.

These house-parents are usually very unhappy people. They take out their anger and frustrations on the students. They are unfeeling and almost unable to empathize with situations.

Students are often so restricted. They rebel more strongly. Boarders have a notorious reputation of being callous, unfocused students whose sole aim is to cause trouble. Teachers can easily pick out who is a non-border and who resides at school.

Students are not only abused, but some tend to abuse each other. They jump on beds late at night when their roommate is asleep. They do this regularly. They scream and shout during study hall, even if some of their friends are struggling in school.

Sexual conversations are most prevalent. In schools that do not offer comprehensive sex education, peers are the most common sources. They offer late-night conversations that completely misrepresent sexual practices and sexualities.

Boarders are often called to meetings to be scolded. There is rarely appreciation from faculty. The already notorious boarders tend to blow off homework most times. They have poor relationships with their house faculty, especially if they have been boarding since a young age.

Boarders left without the care of people who love them are at the mercy of school caretakers. They are focused on just earning their pay, and most often than not, use abusive words towards students.

tl;dr: Children can make you lose your sense of individuality. They can also replace your goals and dreams. But, children can heal and soothe. They make the future a better and safer place for the world.

Children create chaos. Once you are a parent, you are always a parent. They corrode your sense of individuality. They demand sacrifices and attention. You can only hope they will love you the same way you love them. They are also a cause of constant worry. Y

You can love someone the same way as your child. There is no need to have a child when you can love your friends and family in the same unconditional manner. Children do not have a monopoly on the purity of love.

Still, children bring joy. They bring hope for a better generation. They give you a chance to protect them. Many children with abusive parents (emotional, physical, negligence) want to have kids. They want to give another child the life they never had.

Children are the true essence of innocence. They can perform acts of kindness that mankind is quickly losing. Having children can help you make the future safer for the world. Teaching them your culture and language can help preserve forms of expression. Teaching them kindness can help make the world a better place.

Having children can be healing or destructive. Children can mess up our five-year plans. But they can provide hope and comfort.

tl;dr: Joker taught the audience the raw reality of the world. It is always about the survival of the fittest. It taught kindness and condemned judgemental thinking.

Joker was an excellent commentary on social psychology. Everything Joker can be justified. Childhood trauma, poor parenting choices, along with his profound mental disorders. They all contributed to his actions.

It taught the audience to not judge people. Everyone has a different story. More importantly, everyone is struggling in many different, agonizing ways. There is good in people who seem to be bad. There is bad in people who seem to be trying to be good.

The Joker had many violent scenes. It showed the raw reality of the real world. It does not shelter people. The world forces us to fight. It is the survival of the fittest out there. The violence was depicted as a snapping point. A point where he could not take it anymore.

It does not glorify violence. It does not justify it either. It just shows the audience why there is violence. It is up to the audience to understand it. Joker is a realistic example of a hard life. It teaches kindness.

It also shows the great divide between the privileged and the underprivileged. The division is causing many problems. It was a realistic story. The riots and violence in the movie were condemned. But the depiction of people's reactions was realistic.

Joker is not a movie that shows us any role models. It is a movie that depicts the real, authentic versions of different kinds of people. It almost romanticizes the cruelty of the real world. That is why the movie leaves people shaken.

tl;dr: College being free would reduce incentives to become professors. It would reduce competitiveness and a sense of personal achievement.

College being free would have a lot of advantages. It would do a lot of good. But, it will cause more harm than good.

Lower salaries will lower the percentage of people who end up being professors. Professors need to study for years before they can teach at a college level. They have already spent years without a decent paycheck.

Significant pay cuts would mean that the quality of education will come down. The COVID-19 pandemic is an excellent example of this. Many colleges have reduced the faculty's salaries.

This provides less incentive to take on an extra class for professors. Remote learning is hard enough, with money being taken away (one of the major motivators for the job).

Colleges offer a lot of scholarships and financial aid. Harvard provides free education for students who earn less than a certain amount every year. Scholarships also look great on a resume because they are incredibly competitive. Competition is a major part of higher education.

Aiming to get fellowships and scholarships increases motivation and focus. If college were free, then scholarships with stipends and prestigious research fellowships would be unavailable.

Contributing to the family by getting a significant scholarship and convincing the university to give you aid is a major accomplishment. It is a tangible accomplishment that teaches you to deal with and enter into the real world.

tl;dr: Consciousness is completely dependent on biology. Anatomy brings about feelings. The depth of emotion cannot be replicated in AI. When disappointed, AI will never feel that pit in its stomach.

Consciousness is a bundle. It is a combination of codes so unique to an individual that it can rarely be expressed what it is to them. Consciousness is a structure of awareness of the person’s desires, memories, sensations, thoughts, and environments. It is the realization and deliberation of being alive and experiencing life.

Consciousness is ever-changing and malleable, shaping our minds to be what they are. Machines are programmed. These artificial creations that have don’t have a ‘body’ of their own. Its body does not have nerves or skin. A machines’ bodily anatomy is far from ours, so it cannot experience life like humans.

Consciousness is about experiences and is what makes an individual remarkably unique. Just like humans’ fingerprints, consciousness cannot be mirrored or even replicated in machines. They lack the realness of human anatomy. The impact of experiences is too different. The machines are incapable of real feelings. They can only mimic them.

One of the important distinctions to understand between intelligence and consciousness. Intelligence can be replicated and can be malleable even without actual experiences. When a robot feels pain, it cannot now nor in the future truly feel pain.

Scientists Dehaene and Changeux support this theory. It can replicate what humans say when they say they feel pain because it’s a physical notion. This is something whose experience cannot truly be understood without nerves. Christoff Koch said, “When you are on the phone… “We are sorry to keep you waiting,” Does the software actually feel bad while keeping you in customer-service hell?”

It can never appear in agents of artificial intelligence because consciousness has not been localized. We cannot point out to a region in the brain and say, “look, this is where consciousness occurs.”

Despite the Integrated Information Theory, other experiences, such as color firing up different neurons in the human brain, consciousness has not been localized because it is a collection of so many emotions.

A robot is a physical being. It is not intentional because it is programmed. A robot cannot possibly feel nostalgia. Smelling wet mud will not bring back memories unless it is programmed. It can only replicate it on the surface by mimicking humans.

Consciousness cannot be mimicked because it’s a subject experience. Morality and ethics are something robots cannot pick up on because there is no universal concept of definition that they can observe. In conclusion, artificial intelligence can never be conscious.

Sources

Hildt, E. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: Does Consciousness Matter?. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1535.

Koch, C., & Tononi, G. (2008). Can machines be conscious?. Ieee Spectrum, 45(6), 55-59.

Regalado, A. (2014). What It Will Take for Computers to Be Conscious. MIT Technology Review. Web. Retrieved from https://www. technologyreview. com/s/531146/what-it-will-take-for-computers-to-be-conscious/on May, 28, 2016.

According to Chatelet and Descartes, prejudice is erroneous in our knowledge of everything we know. Prejudice, for Châtelet, “is an opinion that one has accepted without examination because it would be indefensible otherwise” (Discourse on Happiness, 352)

Stating a controversial opinion for that period, Chatelet states that prejudice is found in most of the Church's teachings. She also says that present in multiple facets of our daily lives.

Chatelet insists on holding on to illusions, for they are the ones that please us. It is through our passions that we are happy. If we do not find something as strong as passions, then our tastes bring us pleasure.

For someone to be happy, they need to indulge in their desires. They need to allow themselves to immerse in that passion completely. If that passion is harmful, then one cannot fully enjoy it. This is because happiness comes from experiences of pleasure.

When we thoroughly investigate our tastes and desires, we can rid ourselves of prejudice. After this, we can understand precisely what brings us happiness.

Happiness, when rid of prejudice, according to Chatelet, brings contentment. Happiness is virtuous, and it brings that contentment. Chatelet believes that prejudice is an evil lurking in our experiences. Prejudice turns them into harmful experiences and torture our consciousness. This is because we cannot be happy and immoral.

For example, thieves cannot be happy for they live a prejudiced life full of evil, “they can only be useful to malformed souls, for there are corrupted souls just as there are deformed bodies.” (Discourse on Happiness, 353)

Chatelet also believes that if we do not thoroughly understand our tastes and the experience, we cannot experience happiness. To truly understand experiences and preferences, we need to rid ourselves of prejudice. Chatelet brings up an excellent point, which is that happiness is relative and is dependent on society.

Living a virtuous life and becoming an honorable person, one is accepted into society. This acceptance brings a great deal of contentment and happiness to one’s daily life. A person’s conscience plays an essential role in contentment. Nevertheless, an immoral life and disdain from society can cause uneasiness in one’s conscience. Uneasiness leads to unhappiness.

One’s concept of happiness has to be independent. It cannot rely on anything else, like society. Happiness can only be achieved when one is confident. This confidence and indulgence in one’s passions and experiences brings happiness.

This independence can be achieved primarily through ridding oneself of prejudice. It is also achieved after thoroughly understanding what gives oneself pleasure.

According to Chatelet, once one is confident no harm can come out of that experience, one is on the correct path to independent happiness.

Sources
https://medium.com/@tonymdimauro/what-does-it-take-to-be-happy-bf822a1ff400.

https://www.degruyter.com/chicago/view/book/9780226168081/10.7208/9780226168081-010.xml

That's awesome!! What aspect of your view changed? The path to happiness or happiness in itself?

Technology makes our lives easier. It is convenient. It makes our actions faster and more efficient. Technology as a result presents us with ideas and actions with minimum effort.

Creativity is a concept that has no boundaries, no rules. Creativity is limited when things are made easily available to us. Making a bookmark (creative) is unnecessary when you are reading on a kindle. Memorizing numbers with creative narratives is unnecessary because all our numbers are saved on our phones.

Creativity thrives in challenging, laborious situations. The technology eliminates or minimizes such situations. A person would be more creative and authentic in decorating their room without technology like Pinterest or pre-collated visual mood boards.

Laborious tasks like puzzles, chess, and painting require more creativity because they do not use any form of technology.

My two LGBTQ+ friends walked into my room and said, “Ew, your room is so painfully straight.” It was a typical room designed to my tastes. It was baby blue and had wall art of European landscapes and plants. I could not say anything. I was offended. This is just one of the many statements I had to hear.

LGBTQ+ discrimination exists. But these days so does heterosexual discrimination. Emotions are always running high in situations like this. It is not easy to say something in your defense because you are scared you might offend this person. I have had to take blatantly rude comments like this from many of my classmates.

I overheard a conversation in a shared room with a classmate. She said, “Straight people are the most boring people I have met.” There have been many instances where heterosexual people have been called boring or “not adventurous.”

I have seen many people call heterosexual men bigots and uptight. These blanket statements are unjust. Heterosexual women are often accused of being too “vanilla” in their sexual practices. They are viewed as too dull in their dating and clothing preferences. It is not okay to discriminate against heterosexuals. The same applies to the LGBTQ+. It is a two-way street.

Discrimination means “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.” The extent of discrimination depends on what we are talking about. Members of the LGBTQ+ community are discriminated against to a much larger extent than heterosexual members. This does not mean there is no discrimination at all.

I agree there is less harm. My argument is not one that says, “my hose is bigger than yours.” It is evident that LGBTQ+ discrimination is the bigger horse. The argument is that another horse exists also. The argument does not say that heterosexual people have suffered. We have not. My argument is to inform the audience that heterosexual discrimination exists. Period.

People are capable of discriminating against heterosexuals but in a minor way. This is because they have suffered enough at the hands of heterosexual people. To reiterate my point. It is not about the extent of discrimination, but merely the fact that it exists. This in no way attacks any community or tries to play the victim card.

In my argument, there is no mention of any phobia. Phobia and discrimination are two very different things. My argument states that there is a certain extent of heterosexual discrimination present these days. It is important to realize and notice that other forms of discrimination exist. They might not be as bad.

I am not saying that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. People should be aware and mindful of the comments they make about heterosexual individuals. There is no heterophobia here. I do not believe that Heterophobia is present. I do not think it can exist. Heterophobia and homophobia is not the argument.

Again, this is not discounting the fact that LGBTQ+ members suffer discrimination. Just because one group suffers discrimination does not mean we can eliminate or dismiss other forms of discrimination. If we want to progress as a society, we need to be aware of all conditions of discomfort we cause to people.

I would say that using the “my horse is bigger than yours” explanation to be indifferent to other sorts of minor discrimination is morally wrong.

This is an excellent counter-argument! I think my conclusion stays the same. I do agree with your point about systematic discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.

Still, discrimination exists in both communities and against two communities, whether it is personal or systemic.

Like @ellikara91 said, "it is important to keep in mind that it is not a matter of which discrimination is 'bigger,' but the impact of such comments (based on sexual orientation) on a person's psychology/life is considered significant harm, regardless of whether it is not widespread."

It is a matter that needs attention and awareness because, as @ellikara91 said, discrimination can grow quickly and profoundly impact a person's confidence in their sexuality.

I absolutely agree, @ellikara91! You understood my argument perfectly, thank you!

tl;dr
Women have sexualized their breasts many times to their advantage. It is completely unfair to blame only men for sexualizing breasts.

Hooters, Twin Peaks, and Tilted Kilt boast combined sales of up to $2.5 billion annually. 20% of all magazine and web ads currently feature sexualized images. Cardi B and the Kardashians make matters worse. Female pop stars and TV personalities use their breasts to be sexier and gain views. If these women believe that women are for feeding, not sexualizing, they should stop using them for their advantage.

Women profit from sexualizing their breasts. They choose to sexualize them by making songs and videos like Anaconda and WAP. The Kardashians rose to fame by sexualizing their body. Wearing clothes that are figure-hugging or skimpy is not wrong. Intentionally sexualizing breasts and then blaming this sexualization solely on men is wrong.

Modern Family in a Christmas episode features Haley, the outgoing Dunphy daughter. She intentionally unties the knot on her top, displaying her breasts. This is to entice a man who is carrying an out of stock product Haley needs. Such examples of women sexualizing their breasts should not be ignored.

Women often get out of running red lights by sexualizing their breasts. Women often ask their friends if they look “sexy” if their cleavage is out there enough. In an episode of “Say Yes to the Dress,” a woman desperately wants her cleavage out to look sexy and hot. She believes that her breasts are a huge sex appeal. This is a woman who is sexualizing her breasts.

Men do sexualize breasts. Women sexualize them just as much. Both sexualize them for different reasons, but one gender is not more at fault than the other. Women have as much to gain from sexualizing breasts as men.

That's a really interesting point you bring up, Olivia! However, I think sexualizing would have been present anyway. Breasts are a major part of sexual acts because they give pleasure. Men sexualized them historically because it was primal. Breasts connect to fertility and reproduction. Women would have sexualized them without men initiating it because they are integral in sexual acts. What do you think?

There is an enormous number of orphaned children in the world. They desperately need homes for comfort, security, and a family. Likewise, many wish to become parents. Instead of furthering their genes, they can adopt. Adoption is a more moral choice because a child already exists and is waiting for their family. If you are able and willing to become a parent, then it is logical to help a child that needs that love.

Procreation is not a necessity when there are children who do not have homes. Procreation is needed to prevent extinction. Today, there is a surplus of children available, so our survival is not at stake. I would argue that it is, in fact, cruel and immoral to give birth to children in such a situation. Procreation is a sign of privilege. Privilege to be able to give birth to children and lavish them with love.

It is also a sign of ignorance and snobbishness. Procreating when the same love can be given to someone who needs it proves that much. Creating a child for the sole purpose of furthering our genes is utterly selfish. It also does not help the community because the population increases when a child could have been helped instead. Allowing a child to remain in the system and develop all sorts of problems with no fault of their own is ignorant.

It is crucial to address the number of children who have been abandoned or left behind because their parents could not take care of them. When there are people able to take care of a child, they should help those that already exist and not make a child to give them that same love.

Sources
https://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/why-you-should-adopt-and-not-create-children
https://achildshope.com/want-to-adopt/why-adopt/#:~:text=Adoption%20allows%20couples%20and%20single,to%20children%20who%20need%20them
https://www.verywellfamily.com/five-reasons-you-should-adopt-a-child-26587

That's a good point! What I mean by "ignorance and snobbishness" is tied into my next point. One of the most common reasons why people choose to procreate is because it is easier. The child is your flesh and blood, and it is easier to love and feel connected. The reasons you mention for procreation can be very easily applied to adopted children. They can have all these things with adopted children. The main advantage procreation brings furthering your genes. That, to me, is snobbish because it is a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Procreation is not lesser than adoption. I would say that its adoption triumphs procreation in terms of moral considerations. If there are people out there who need your love, then you can give it to them instead of creating a child to give that love.

I believe that Voldermort was a better and truer villain than Umbridge.

Umbridge was like any other villain. If this were a story that did not have a deeper, darker plot, Umbridge would have been perfect. Umbridge is just a mean teacher in a place of witchcraft. Just like a teacher in the muggle world would use harsh words and rulers to punish children, Umbridge uses her blood-sucking pens and intentionally dry coursework.

Voldermort is what created the whole Harry Potter legacy. If Harry Potter never lived, there would be no plot. The scar, the Horcruxes, the Order of Phoenix, and Harry’s best friends all wove in together seamlessly because of Voldermort. Voldermort killed Harry’s parents and many other people. Umbridge never killed anybody. She just created a lot of rules with a touch of sadism and discrimination against other magical beings.

Voldermort is more of a villain than Umbridge because he did characteristically evil things on a much larger scale. The Death Eaters were eviler and larger in number than the Inquistiroal Squad. Death Eaters had more of an evil-doing capacity. Voldermort used dark magic and was an insanely powerful wizard. Umbridge was indeed more relatable, but Voldermort was the true, all-powerful, and leading villain in Harry Potter.

I think if the question were whether Umbridge was more realistic or more relatable, then Umbridge would win. In a setting like Harry Potter and the witchcraft world, however, Voldermort is the better villain.

Fifty Shades of Gray has highly controversial displays of sexual practices. However, that does not mean it is abuse. It is commonly viewed as abuse because of the extremely unconventional approach to sex. Pleasure is received and given in different ways the audience is not familiar with.

The most important thing to consider when labeling something as abuse is consent. In this narrative, all sexual practices happen with full consent. The consent is active. Ana and Christian both sign a contract. Both of them negotiate the terms, and both of them agree to the terms negotiated. When Ana does not like the sexual practices between them, she walks away.

Also, Ana and Christian’s contract discuss terms of dominance and submission. Ana is seen to derive pleasure from being submissive. I believe that this image of abuse is easily confused with distaste and discomfort. I'm afraid I have to disagree with the idea of one person as a dominant and the other as submissive. It gives me great distress to see Christian control parts of Ana’s life. However, Ana is okay with it and voices her discomfort when needed. An example of this is in Fifty Shades Freed when she refuses to change her name. Another is when she defends her pregnancy.

In conclusion, I believe that Fifty Shades of Gray does not show an abusive relationship. It is a relationship carried out with consent and willingness from both parties. They both have the freedom to walk away at any point. The alleged victim of the abuse (Ana) walks away whenever she feels the need to walk away. She stands up for herself also. Fifty Shades of Gray shows the audience an unconventional approach to relationships.

Years of colonialism and the general hype of living in the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada has created three extremely problematic groups of people in the Indian community. These three groups are problematic because of the western-superiority notion ingrained in most Indians.

The first group is ‘mentally elsewhere but living in India.’ These are infamously Bollywood households and cosmopolitan areas that are full of international schools. This group focuses on raising their children so that they are not connected to their Indian culture. They are taught only English. These children do not know a word of their mother tongue because it is considered ‘tacky.’ These parents have an inferiority complex and believe that English is a social class, not just a language.

The second group of people is Indian immigrants who live in North America or Canada. These are the most problematic out of all. They are insistent on ensuring their children’s names are easy to pronounce for non-Indians. They use far-fetched Indian gods and goddesses’ names to shape them into easily pronounceable names for their community. They insist on teaching them English to ensure their child assimilates.

This fear is translated from their own confusion of where they belong and added on by their western superiority complex. However, they try to appear that they are doing everything they can to ensure their children know the Indian culture. Their best argument is that they show their children Bollywood movies. Unfortunately, Bollywood is as close to Indian culture as the color yellow is to black. Although the parents usually speak their mother tongues fluently, they insist on ensuring their children have nothing to do with their Indian culture.

The third group of people is Indians, who believe that only Indians are culturally superior. This comes as a result of resentment towards the over-western parenting and culture. Typically, this results from group 1 parenting, who believe they are superior to others if their lifestyle and culture are western (North American). This group believes that only Indian values and cultures are the best globally, and people who have been brought up elsewhere are intellectually inferior. They tend to resent both groups 1 and 2 and believe in teaching their children that only the region they live in or India is superior to all others.

These three groups, unfortunately, compose a considerable part of Indian parenting in the 21st century. These groups are causing problems in an overall sense of belonging. Their children generally grow up confused about where they belong. They also tend to have incomplete and biased knowledge of their culture, history, and the general population.

I would disagree with the notion that Romeo and Juliet is not a love story. Although I am all looking at pieces of literature through a modern lens, I still believe that it is a love story, with or without the modern lens. Your argument is quite good, but I think it focuses on a different aspect of the story. I think your argument proves that Romeo and Juliet is a toxic story with abuse, misconceptions of wooing a romantic interest, and an overall tragic note to the workings of their relationship. However, I do not think that this discredits the idea that this story is not a love story. This story is a tragic love story, written in a period wherein the workings of a romantic relationship were significantly different from modern-day, including some practices that are frowned upon or even considered a criminal offense. However, most of the aspects between these two protagonists happened with full consent, knowing each others’ intentions. Also, love worked very differently from when this narrative was written. In today’s world of casual dating and flings, improbable that someone falls in love within days (not that any of these things are in any way wrong. They are just different). People fell in love faster back then and were very seriously committed to each other. There is a chance that it could have been infatuation, but the strong love that we see towards the end when they meet their demise can be categorized in the conventional definition of love. I also think that your arguments move more towards the category of it being a tragic, flawed relationship, and not that it was not love. Many relationships are deeply flawed in terms of communication and actions they take, but as long as there is full consent, it can still be called a love story. For example, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s story can also be called a love story, however flawed and tragic. The fifty shades series is also a love story in a more modern context, even though it is highly unconventional with contracts and rules. All these relationships happened with consenting adults who, unfortunately, had major flaws. In fact, I would say that it is love and not infatuation that causes the most tragic endings because you go to lengths for the person you love. Thus, I do not believe that all these factors negate the love between Romeo and Juliet.

However, I have not read the whole book, but I do the general plot!

The Duggars have a primetime spot on television in their very own reality show, Counting On. The Duggar family is known for its infamously fanatic religious views, which are highly oppressive and orthodox. The Duggar clan consists of twenty-one members, with nineteen children, and Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar as heads of the household. This poses a massive problem for the well being of their children. In this tremendously large family, the children shared one bathroom between the fifteen of them and lived in a house made for a much smaller family. However, these children were planned since the Duggars are firmly against contraception and believe that all children are miracles and gifts sent by God.

The Duggars are incredibly sexist parents because their parenting guidelines differ depending on the gender of their child. If the Duggar child is a girl, she is groomed to have regular sex with her husband even if that is not what she wants. They are expected to enter courtships, not relationships, and all their dates are heavily chaperoned to a point where they cannot have open, honest conversations with each other. The Duggar girls are taught that their primary purpose is to reproduce and be human incubators for as long as possible without regard to their health. They are also not allowed to leave their house to get their place unless they are married. This comes from the fact that they are never allowed to educate themselves. In a TV show clip, Michelle Duggar showed her seven to twelve-year-olds the same math topic of adjacent triangles.

Michelle Duggar leaves the parenting to her eldest children, introducing a ‘buddy system,’ which should be called a ‘mommy system.’ These children are full-time nannies and parents to their younger siblings, where they do everything from changing their diapers to ensuring they finish their homework. What is distracting is that they are not allowed to go to public school, nor are they allowed to go to college, for it is seen as “sinful” and “inappropriate” to get further education. This is not the case for boys, however, since they go into work full time right after they finish their ‘education.’ The oldest, Jana, is considered the most talented of them all, considering she chose not to get married at the minimum legal age, unlike her other sisters. She wants to start a business of interior design but does not have the confidence because of her lack of knowledge in architecture, interior design, or business management. The Duggars provide dangerously and ‘do not’s’ examples of parenting, where they leave their children unprepared for the real world so that they can never be independent.

Girls cannot wear anything other than knee-length skirts and dresses and have to wear tops with sleeves high necked and loose around the waist. Michelle Duggar is the flagbearer of the “women distract men and boys will be boys” phrase considering her passive and inappropriate reaction to her oldest son Josh molesting and sexually abusing her younger daughters. His wife was not allowed to divorce him and continued to have children despite his pedophilic nature. He is still invited to family gatherings, and his sisters have to endure their molester’s presence in their house. This resulted from the Duggar’s treating sex as sinful and taboo, with no explanation or acknowledgment of puberty. The Duggars are so oppressive and focused on creating industries and not families that they would probably be alright with creating a Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale.

Their oppressive, sexist, and unjust parenting rules are triumphed by the fact that both Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar went to typical public schools, wore what they wanted, and did activities that pleased them. This pair exerts their will upon innocent children who are given no chance to succeed in this world nor make their own choices in life. Their paths are made for them depending on their gender. Two of the Duggar daughters have recently rebelled and openly spoken out about the family’s emotional and physical abusive nature. They explained that Duggar children get married at such young ages because they want to have sex and act out of their own free will, which only comes after marriage. They are not even allowed to hug during their courtship, which is made unbearable through scarily chaperoned dates even when on video chat. The Duggars have created their world dating back centuries within a very progressive country. It is frightening to think that they have a television platform designed to display their oppressive and unjust ways of rearing their children.

More often than not, the existence of God has been attributed to unexplainable circumstances. In ancient times, thunderstorms and natural disasters were believed the be caused by God to showcase his wrath on the world. Today, we have a scientific explanation for natural disasters and thunderstorms and have discredited to an extent God’s hand behind these common phenomenons. In the modern-day, we continue to have inexplicable concepts, ideals, and circumstances that challenge us to a point where we are forced to believe that it is all God’s doing.

God is the answer to all questions we cannot prove yet. One of the most encouraging arguments towards justifying that God does not exist is, is the existence of evil.

Evil comes in many forms and ways and is harmful to a range of individuals. If God existed, why do spontaneous miscarriages happen, and why did an atrocity like the Holocaust occur? How is it that evil is allowed to spread its malicious wings and light fire to whatever it sees fit if God exists? If the Allied had not won the war, would Jews have been decimated and eliminated forever?

Also, if God exists, then there is no free will, for they cannot coexist. If God exists, then all of the things that have happened in the universe’s history were predetermined and planned for a reason. So, if they were happening for a reason, evil should have never been a part of that reason. The universe should have been a cradle of euphoria. If we look to philosophers for an explanation, most of them fall short. They create logical necessities, leaving no room for a falsifiable argument, which in itself is a weak argument.

An example of this is Descartes’ argument for God’s existence through an analogy of triangularity. Triangularity is used as a concept in Descartes’s Fifth Meditation. The essence of a triangle is such that even if it never existed, it is still about something. Its essence is true and immutable in nature. The triangle is not created by anybody and is indisputable by nature and never changing. A triangle cannot merge into anything else, so it is forever rigid. Just like triangularity, there is goodness. This Goodness has a true and immutable nature, even if God does not exist.

The essence of a triangle is that it has three sides, and God’s essence is ‘what must be.’ The only essence of instantiation of a God is existence, and God is ‘that which must be.’ Everything else, other than God’s existence, just like everything else other than triangularity, is up to debate. This essence of a triangle or its triangularity contributes in a way that provides an existential necessity for God’s existence.

Just like the three sides of a triangle, God’s existence is an inherent necessity in which its very being is a necessity. So, God is an exception to the concept of essence. One has to describe the properties that make up its essence before knowing or justifying its existence. However, in Descartes’s view, the essence itself is His existence.

Like the universe, which could have never failed to exist (temporal and spatial facts), His existence is a necessity and not just a possibility, which is quite a weak argument. In layman’s terms, Descartes is saying that God exists. Period. There is no evidence. In fact, the whole argument, the premise, and the conclusion are the same. This provides an extremely dubious argument that is unfalsifiable and absurd. Descartes does not allow for counterarguments or counterexamples. Descartes believes that his premise is true because even if one premise is false, the conclusion has to be false.

In the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume uses the copy thesis to justify how our behavior and ideas stem from already existing concepts and things. For example, Hume explains that although the human mind is limitless and can conceive anything it wants to, the foundational conceptions come from a narrow stream of ideas already familiar with us. “That all this creative power of the mind amounts merely to the ability to combine, transpose, enlarge, or shrink the materials that the senses and experience provide us with. When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas—gold and mountain—with which we were already familiar.” (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 8)

His first argument to prove this is the idea of God. Hume states that we portray and understand God’s existence to be one of an “an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being” (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 8). However, this is not a new concept or an unfamiliar one. Intelligence, wisdom, and goodness are all qualities that have some sort of perception in our minds, so all we do for the creation of God is stretch those qualities to unfathomable lengths to create this Supreme Being. God is an idea. It is a creation of already existing qualities and has been used for self-serving purposes.

History has proven time and again that God is one of the most decisive factors that has caused war, cruelty, forceful conversions from one religion to another, and spearheaded imperialism. “Christianity was one justification that European powers used to colonize and exploit Africa. Through the dissemination of Christian doctrine, European nations such as Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands sought to educate and reform African culture.” (A History of Africa) God has often been used as an excuse to exploit and brainwash innocents into thinking that there is a savior for their troubles.

Slavery was one of the concepts and practices that went directly against the word of God. From the beginning of the book, Cugoano’s point of view is clear - slavery is an act against God and His natural laws. Cugoano rightfully believed that enslaving a human being is a disgrace to Christianity and an act of evil that strays oneself further away from God and virtue.

From the very foundational aspects of his arguments, Cugoano begins to formulate his idea of natural liberty. “No necessity, or any situation of men… can warrant them to rob others because they are poor or wretched. But the robbers of men and slave-owners who take away the common rights and privileges of others… is the worst kind of robbery as most opposite of every injunction of the Divine law.” Here, Cugoano’s foundational argument states that it is against the Divine law for a man to be enslaved because every man has entitled to his freedom and free will, no matter the state of their lifestyle.

All of this being said, there is no proof that God exists at the end of the day. However, there is very little proof that God does not exist either. I am a Hindu myself and believe in God. However, after reading philosophical arguments and learning some of history’s most terrible aspects, I doubt God’s logical and scientific existence. However, God is a concept that may never be proven or disproved, so I choose to believe my experiences and listen to how I feel in temples.

Sources
Delany, C. C. J. M. R., WEB, C. A. D. F. D., & Bois, D. (2003). Quobna Ottobah Cugoano 29 34 40 44 48:(1757–?). In Pan-African History (pp. 38-40). Routledge

Nolan, L. (2001). Descartes’ Ontological Argument.

Editors, S. (2020). Summary An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/johnlocke/section1/.

Leibniz, G. W., Latta, R., Loptson, P., Montgomery, G. R., Leibniz, G. W., & Leibniz, G. W. (2012). Discourse on metaphysics and other writings: Discourse on metaphysics, The principles of nature and of grace, The monadology. Broadview Press.

Look, B. C. (2013, February 8). Leibniz's Modal Metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/.

Look, B. C. (2013, July 24). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/.
Murray, M. J., & Greenberg, S. (2013, February 27). Leibniz on the Problem of Evil. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/.

In many parts of the world, teachers and parents do not believe that sexual education is an appropriate educational topic for their children and think that it will promote sexual activities deemed dishonorable and unnecessary before marriage. However, studies have shown that educating students about sexual relationships and safe-sex practices have not increased the number of sexual partners they have nor correlated with increased sexual relations in general. According to data collected by the World Bank, through a report from Seeker, European countries such as Italy, Switzerland, and Germany have the lowest teen birth rates, fewer than four teenage pregnancies in every thousand babies born. The United States, however, has over 30 births per thousand babies born. This significant difference is because of the way sex education is conducted in these continents. In the United States, sex education is used to instill fear and apprehension about sexual activities, where their curriculum is full of the dangers of sex such as STDs and pregnancies. According to the 2014 School Health Policies and Practices Study (CDC, 2015a), 72% of high schools in the United States required students to receive education on pregnancy prevention, and 83.1% required instruction on STI prevention. Unfortunately, the students are taught that the primary way to prevent the adverse effects of sexual activities is through abstinence. However, in Europe, sex education is taught like any other subject, where they gear the curriculum to teach sex as a regular, healthy, positive act.

Every two out of three girls in many countries do not know what is happening to them when they start menstruating. Only 34% of young people in this world can demonstrate accurate knowledge of HIV prevention and transmission. With hormonal and physical changes happening to themselves and their classmates, it is only natural that teenagers begin to wonder the source of their changed feelings towards somebody or why they feel giddy with anticipation when their crush walks across from them. These students soon become victims of hearing and learning about misguided and misinformed sexual activities through some of their classmates or by watching pornographic films and clips. This leads to a perplexed and frustrated group of individuals denied their right to understand and act on their own accord in terms of their sexual activities. According to UNESCO, “programs that promote abstinence as the only option are ineffective in delaying sexual initiation, reducing the frequency of sex, or reducing the number of sexual partners. Programs that combine a focus on delaying sexual activity with other content are effective. Sexuality education has the most impact when school-based programs are complemented with the involvement of parents and teachers, training institutes, and youth-friendly services.”

In India, sexual education is either completely unavailable or presented on a PowerPoint for students to write down so that the teacher can quickly move on to the next topic that is less uncomfortable for them. Countries that treat sexual activities as taboos negatively impact their students because they leave them wholly helpless and unprepared. This can also increase the likelihood of sexual harassment and abuse, confused notions about conceiving a child, and the pleasure derived from sex. Given that no form of sexual education has not prevented teenagers and young adults from practicing sex, teaching them safe-sex practices can only help them keep themselves healthy and happy. If anything, sex education helps parents teach their children about morality and explain the different kinds of moral obligations and responsibilities their family holds. This allows students to understand all the options and understand their family beliefs in a calm, positive manner. Students who receive a comprehensive sexual education learn about alternatives to vaginal sex and understand the risks associated with it, which helps them prepare and understand boundaries. According to VeryWellHealth, abstinence-only education sometimes encourages students to abstain from sex without telling them what sex is. In contrast, when comprehensive sex education is taught in schools, it may encourage teens to make more informed decisions before participating in alternative sexual behaviors. Most importantly, since sexual intercourse is expected by society after marriage, guiding and educating students from adolescence helps them understand what they are comfortable with and gain a pleasurable and positive experience.

Sources
https://www.seeker.com/which-countries-have-the-best-sex-education-1792604688.html
https://en.unesco.org/news/why-comprehensive-sexuality-education-important
https://www.verywellhealth.com/support-comprehensive-education-schools-3133083
https://www.nasn.org/advocacy/professional-practice-documents/position-statements/ps-sexual-health#:~:text=Evidence%2Dbased%20sexual%20health%20education%20can%20improve%20academic%20success%3B%20prevent,youth%20(Szydlowski%2C%202015b).

I absolutely agree with all your points!!! We need to include sex education for the LGBTQ+ community into our curriculum!

Body shaming has reached a point where it is no longer just a type of mocking; instead, it has evolved into a social issue. Some people who body shame believe that it will encourage the ones shamed to lose weight, gain weight, or work out. In fact, body shaming has an opposite impact on the person shamed and can lead to depression, low self-esteem, or sometimes, even suicide. A study by behavioral scientists at University College London found that fat-shaming led people to put on more weight rather than encouraging people to lose weight.

It’s important to understand that weight is affected by more than just calories and exercise. This is not to say that these things don’t matter; of course, they do and can be one of the first things to do if someone is trying to adopt a healthier lifestyle. However, weight problems also stem from psychological and biological factors that are much harder to control. Embarrassing them demotivates them from losing weight. More importantly, if a person is shamed for being too thin or too tall, this may even result in disastrous consequences such as self-cutting or major depressive disorder. Being too slim or too tall, and being too curvy, just like being too fat, are not things that can change overnight. It is uncivil, and not to mention absolutely unnecessary, to critique someone’s body.

Multiple studies have shown that weight criticism causes stress and leads overweight people to eat more calories. A 2019 study published in Pediatric Obesity found that teasing children about their weight is linked to increased weight gain well into adulthood, and the more teasing that kids and teens experience, the more weight they may gain. So, body shaming is positively correlated with weight gain. If body shaming children worked, all children in elementary schools would have the same, conventional body types. This is not the case. One of the most obnoxious aspects of body shaming happens to be the shamer. More often than not, the shamers have a conventional standard of beauty, depending on society’s normative trends. If thigh gaps are trending, the body shamers, usually popular among peers, often are ones with thigh gaps. This leads to other perfectly normal bodies without thigh gaps to be shamed.

However, harm from body shaming does not come only from people. It comes through various avenues like social media, advertisements, art, or literature. Movies often portray a skinny heroine with her fat best friend, such as The Bridesmaids. The token overweight character is always the loveless character, with weird quirks. The slim heroine usually has underlying problems such as bulimia or is shown to have the perfect metabolism to absorb her food habits. Works of art use overweight women as abstract drawings, indicating that they do not have any shape or figure. In general, the entertainment industry either over-do ‘inclusivity’ campaigns that reinforce the “other body types” concept and alienate some specific categories even further. On the other hand, social media paints a stereotypical picture of the perfect couples, “beautiful” men and women, and the general clothing choices deemed trendy that only certain body types can wear with comfort. This creates an expectation to have a certain body type that keeps changing according to celebrities or popular individuals' trends.

An aspect of body shaming often neglected is that it affects all genders and not just the female gender. Body shaming for other genders, especially the male gender, is very prevalent and is equally problematic. Women these days are asked to be either curvy or slim, with an hourglass figure. Men, on the other hand, are expected to be tall and muscular and have abs. In literature, men are shown as gallant warriors, big and strong, and unfortunately, that is reinforced through advertisements, especially about condoms, perfumes, and wrist-watches. However, no matter how this manifests, it often leads to comparison and shame and perpetuates the idea that people should be judged mainly by their physical features.

Sources
https://www.stvincentcharity.com/radiant/posts/obesity-expert-explains-why-body-shaming-is-harmful-not-helpful/
https://www.waldeneatingdisorders.com/blog/body-shaming-what-is-it-why-do-we-do-it/
https://www.healthpartners.com/blog/how-body-shaming-affects-your-health/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49714697

That is a good point! However, I believe that children do not understand the seriousness of body shaming. Children are only mimicking what society tells them to mock, what they see in the movies, and what they hear in music lyrics. The problem starts when the mocking takes a cruel turn, which often happens towards the end of elementary school and the beginning of middle school. After children have been exposed to social media and the entertainment industry, they become influenced by those notions. Even in the example of family teasing each other about their weight, it can take a toll on someone already insecure about their bodies. Even if it is well-intentioned, most of the time, the teasing is repetitive and hurtful, with an unconscious mocking tone. Instead of teasing, they can offer healthier alternatives such as motivating you to work out, going on a healthy, nutritious diet, or going on outdoor family hikes. When the effort is made together, it creates a positive effect. In fact, I would say that the most profound negative effects of body shaming can come from people one considers closest to them - family, best friends, and boyfriends/girlfriends! It is most hurtful when society already does not believe your body is beautiful, but now even your family doesn't. I will concede to you that point, however, that at times it is genuinely out of concern or good nature. Still, I believe that there is a very fine line between good-spirited teasing on weight gain versus words that profoundly affect that individual.

Children’s lifestyles have been severely disrupted with the rise of COVID-19 cases and the pandemic in general. Their education has either been halted or dramatically changed, which has negatively impacted their learning and development. Young children, till the age of fourteen, need classroom stimulation to develop and comprehend class materials. Elementary school children primarily learn through tactile stimuli, such as playdough and field trips. This is crucial for their development.

Adolescents have high energy levels, much like elementary school children, and have been known to do many extracurricular activities such as theatre, choir, volunteering, and sports. Furthermore, social interactions are crucial at these ages because school provides real-life examples of the various interactions that adults encounter. Classroom, cafeteria, and group work interactions are vital to building and maintain relationships and understanding yourself and your peers. Some of the best memories come from various aspects of going to school, such as a trip to the zoo or the museum, learning to paint, jamming with the band, or passing notes in the classroom.

Children will also find themselves extremely bored at home and may not find remote classes engaging or fruitful. This will tend to higher aggressive behavior levels, coupled with attention-seeking behavior towards parents working from home. Children may also escape any form of domestic abuse, including negligence, when sent to school. Physical abuse and mental abuse will be limited if they are in school and will be able to communicate with their school counselors to seek advice. School counselors will also be able to take action if children live in abusive homes during this period of the pandemic. Meals, stationary, and toy costs will come down significantly if children are sent to school since schools provide these things.

According to the World Health Organization, children have accounted for barely 8% of confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide. More than 1/3rd of children are asymptomatic, and the rest show extremely mild symptoms of cough. Children are also more resilient than most adults think. Their immunity is much stronger than adults when it comes to COVID-19, and they can fight it off with a sophisticated system of antibodies. One of the reasons is because children’s antibodies function uniquely because of their young age. Their antibodies are developed to fight the protein that SARS-Co-V-2 uses to enter into human cells, eliminating the virus before it enters their cells. Children are also reservoirs to other coronaviruses, helping them fight off this virus robustly.

Children’s smaller features, specifically their noses, are vital in warding off the virus. Since their noses are much smaller, they only have a few ACE-2 receptors in their noses, thus receiving lesser doses of the virus than adults. SARS-Co-V-2 uses these receptors to enter the human body, and the fewer receptors a nose contains, the more it can keep the virus out of its body. Children are also extremely unlikely to be affected severely by the virus because of their naive T-cells. Their T cells do not have strong memories and perceive every virus to pose the same threat as other pathogenic foreign objects. So, their cells fight off the virus efficiently, much before it has the chance to reproduce or attach itself to their body’s cells. Thus, children will be at remarkably low risk of catching the virus even if they go to school.

Children can be divided into pods and wear masks, with immunocompromised children in the same pods to significantly reduce their risk of catching the virus. Children can perform all learning and activities within these pods, and the teacher can socially distance themselves from their fellow students at all times, which is easy to do in smaller classrooms. Children have also demonstrated extremely responsible behavior during the pandemic if their parents have taught them preventive measures. Many parents have reported that their children have socially distanced and worn masks throughout their outdoor activities and have also understood the importance of avoiding crowded areas. Thus, children should go to school at this stage of the pandemic to receive a full, well-rounded education.

The problem of evil has been debated by many philosophers, with religion and morality in its core. The problem is considered one of morality and moral considerations and challenges the goodness and even God's existence. If evil prevails despite the existence of God, then why is God not preventing this gratuitous suffering? For some others, the question is about morality and the meaning of life. Human life exists, yet evil exists, so how can life have meaning if nothing good can ever come out evil? One of the more famous philosophers who have talked about the problem of Evil is Leibniz. Leibniz described God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and argued that He was a being of supreme goodness. Leibniz’s solution or rather an argument is that there is no such thing as evil, and this argument is called the argument of the best possible world. The crux of the argument is that evil and God can co-exist, and evil is just a variation of God's divine goodness. His entire argument relies on the assumption that God exists (a monotheist) and works for all humanity. His beliefs in God and his properties are almost the same as Descartes when he believes that "God an absolutely perfect being." He goes on to say, "power and knowledge are perfections, and, insofar as they belong to God, they do not have limits"; "Whence it follows that God, possessing supreme and infinite wisdom, acts in the most perfect manner, not only metaphysically, but also morally speaking…" However, Leibniz, believes that God is the most perfect being out of the circumstances and qualities he can have, which is a variation of perfection. Leibniz disagrees with the idea that evil is good in disguise and calls it offensively off base since it is still a variation of God's omnipotence.

His concept of possible worlds is one which Leibniz heavily relies on as one of the major premises to his argument for compatibility between God and evil. A "possible" world is a description of an invented world, a world of things that might have been, or could be, concerning the human mind. In a sense, a possible world is a world where things could have been other than they are, and those things are a lot of different ways an action or an event could have been. To better understand a possible world, we can turn to the meaning of an actual world, as Leibniz describes it, is how things will turn out to be. The actual world is a construction of God's will, which is the future and how things will turn out. The actual world is the best of all possible worlds possible, according to Leibniz. He believes that since God is a perfect being who contains all the knowledge in the universe, he will choose the best decision possible. In other words, God's divine goodness is so strong that even when choosing an alternative world that contains evil, it is chosen because of reason. So, in creating the best possible world, God is creating it with sufficient and clear reason, and that reason is that this world is the best of all possible worlds. In Leibniz's writing, the best possible world is a choice that God makes given all choices. So, 'this' world, in Leibniz's writing, is the actual world we are living in, created by God through sufficient reasoning. This actual world results from logical necessity: God's omniscient and omnipotence properties always make the best possible choice for this world we live in. His logical necessity here is that God's properties make it impossible for the actual world not to be the best possible world, so saying that this is not the best possible world is impossible. So, the actual world is the only possibility because no other world could exist.

So, Leibniz's solution to this problem of evil is that there is no problem. To Leibniz, evil is a variation of God's divinity, and that is not a problem since it is the best alternative. However, he does not believe that evil is a necessity. Leibniz believes that evil's role in the world makes it the best combination of events in the world. However, this does not mean that this evil was the best possible choice individually. Using this argument, he rejects the argument that this is not the best possible world because evil exists. For example, according to Leibniz, the Holocaust was an act of evil by itself, but the act, combined with all the other events in the world, created the best possible world. Evil on its own is not the best choice. However, when combined with other world events, it is the best choice because God has free will in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Thus, there is no such thing as evil, but only variations in Divine Goodness to create a world that is formed from all the best alternatives God knows.

Sources
Leibniz, G. W., Latta, R., Loptson, P., Montgomery, G. R., Leibniz, G. W., & Leibniz, G. W. (2012). Discourse on metaphysics and other writings: Discourse on metaphysics, The principles of nature and of grace, The monadology. Broadview Press.
Look, B. C. (2013, February 8). Leibniz's Modal Metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/.
Look, B. C. (2013, July 24). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/.
Murray, M. J., & Greenberg, S. (2013, February 27). Leibniz on the Problem of Evil. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/.