sofiawells

TL;DR: Since privilege is inherited, it is unjust for that to be the determinant of healthcare

A privilege of what?...

Healthcare being a privilege is only (somewhat) justified under the belief that "privilege" is equally accessible by everyone. Since that is not the case - people's economic status is largely determined by things out of their control (like family income, geography, race, gender) - it would seem wholly unjust to deny people something as essential as health on the basis of "privilege".

Think of a child - they have absolutely no control over their parents financial situation, but under the "healthcare is a privilege system", they are penalized for it, and it could cost them their lives.

TL;DR: It should be, but it might not be received well if too strong of a stance is taken
Yes, it should be. It definitely warrants it. I will say though, from a strategical perspective, declaring it an emergency and taking as strong of measures as with COVID could potentially backfire. People tend to take the defense when anything is forced on them, especially when it requires them to change their lifestyles (as a response to climate change would). Even more so when it's presented as imminent doom but it's not easily perceptible.

COVID is a perfect analogy - even when there is evidence of it's gravity, an incredible amount of people not only disregard the recommendations but actively speak out against it. Although we don't have a control to compare it to, it's fairly easy to say that this reaction is a result of the mass mandates and the state of emergency contradicting the "allergies" they were feeling.

This has been happening with the climate crisis for quite some time, people can't easily see it and it would require them to change, so they take the opposition stance. So I don't know, it obviously needs to be a priority, I'm just not sure how the general public would react to a COVID-like response.

TL;DR: Since the purpose of music is enjoyment, it should be up to the listener

For most people, the purpose of music is entertainment/enjoyment. So if listening to the same 1D track from 2013 is what they enjoy, so be it. If people simply don't enjoy listening to new music, that's just that. There shouldn't be rules and "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" for something that is purely subjective entertainment (for the most part, obviously some entertainment is subject to moral shoulds and shouldn'ts). And it just doesn't make sense to make yourself do something you don't enjoy, unless it's something like school or work that will leave a major consequence if you don't. But music is people's respite; it should be whatever gives them that.

TL;DR: The police are currently responsible for too much, defunding them would (or should) just mean allocating those resources to other programs.

The police are called for pretty much everything - mental health crises, noise complaints, parking violations, even to help deliver babies on freeways. In fact, only 4.4% of police calls from 2018-2020 were for violent crimes.

It's also worth noting that even some of the less serious things that we assume must be handled by the police, like parking tickets or filing runaway reports, can also be split up, so as to decentralize the power and possibly prevent some of the speeding ticket-turned-murder incidents that we see now.

Part of the problem is that they simply aren't trained enough for some of these situations. This can sometimes turn ugly, as it did with Arnaldo Rios Soto, an autistic man who had run away from his group home when someone saw him in the middle of the road and called the police. Arnaldo's caretaker, Charles Kinsey, found him and was explaining to the police officer that Arnaldo was not a threat (from the ground, I should add), when the officer shot Kinsey while attempting to shoot Arnaldo.

Even more often, the encounters are just useless, as the police are often not trained in de-escalating someone from suicide, for example.

So, the idea of defunding the police is not to create a society where you have no-one to call when someone is breaking into your home. Obviously this would be a horrible idea.
It's mostly just to de-concentrate these services from a singular force, and reallocate funding to other services that already exist, and potentially create new, more specialized entities. These services would also emphasize crime prevention rather than punishment.

TL;DR: The government (for the most part) should not mandate vaccines, but employers and institutions should be able to require their own employees, students, and other staff to get vaccinated if it is a dire public health crisis.

Letting the government mandate vaccines could very likely set up a slippery slope of invasive mandates. I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, and I mostly trust the science. With the COVID vaccine, I have little to no doubts about its safety. 99.9% of the time, I will get vaccinated willingly. Still, on a general scale, the idea of being forced by the government to be injected with a mystery substance feels a little violating. I think many people feel even more strongly about this and would take government mandated vaccines as proof of a corrupt and authoritarian government.

That being said, there's obviously a limit to how far personal freedoms can go before they violate another person's wellbeing. If a virus had an exceptionally high rate of fatality or serious long term symptoms, it might be justified. I'm not sure this is the case with COVID.

Businesses, schools, and other private entities, however, should be able to look out for the wellbeing of their community by requiring vaccinations in their populations. This isn't an outrageous idea; you're supposed to get vaccinated before college and travel anyways. It would also encourage people to get vaccinated without the likely backlash and fear of if it came from the government. Efforts should also be focused on educating the public about the safety and importance of vaccines, so that mandating is the very last resort.

In the U.S, "COVID vaccine passports" are in the works to be used by private businesses to allow or disallow people from entry. There may be some caveats for people with health issues preventing them from getting vaccinated, I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like Biden is on board with it.

TL;DR: Technically, only the government can illegally censor, and people being de-platformed are rarely taken off of every single platform.

From a legal perspective, de-platforming is not censorship. According to the first amendment, censorship can only be imposed by the government. Private businesses like social media companies are not required to give everyone a platform.

Logistically, taking away people's social media platforms does make it more difficult to be heard, and maybe some laws should be updated with the introduction of the internet. But then again, when the constitution was written, pretty much the only thing comparable to social media in terms of mass communication was the newspaper or the printing press, and neither of those had government regulations imposed on them. Nowadays, people have even more alternatives to the mass communication outlets of today - people can start their own websites, go to different social media sites (since there are countless so being de-platformed from a few doesn't leave you option-less), or even email/mail lists. Based on this, there doesn't seem to be a dire need to expand the definition of censorship to private businesses.

TL;DR: Jordan Peterson has contributed good things to the psychology field, but "great" is an overstatement when his inflammatory speech and delegitimization of social issues are taken into consideration

Some of Peterson's more problematic stances are summed up here by The Guardian, using direct quotes from Peterson: "'The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.' Islamophobia is 'a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons'. White privilege is 'a Marxist lie'. Believing that gender identity is subjective is 'as bad as claiming that the world is flat'.

For me, these kind of statements disqualify someone from being labeled as "great". These statements, paired with his PhD and cool, calm, and collected attitude give his audience (mostly young white conservative men) the relief they've been looking for from being painted as the oppressor (and consequently reduce action taken to combat oppressive systems).

Regarding the C-16 controversy, in which Peterson has often been championed as a defender of free speech, many Canadian law experts agree that Peterson was misinterpreting the C-16 bill, that it would take something much more extreme than misgendering someone to cause legal consequences.

He also just has the somewhat annoying attitude of belittling those who disagree with him, adopting an indifferent tone to make those who are passionate seem silly or crazy, and even calling some ideas that differ from his own silly, absurd, or insane.

TL;DR: Pseudoscience is definitely present in the wellness "industry", but it's not the entire industry.

"Wellness" as a culture/industry can encompass anything from herbal supplements and fresh/healthy food to yoga and meditation. It's bottom line is, one, that it emphasizes a holistic view of health, which Western medicine often ignores. It focuses on the connection between mind and body, which [research has shown the importance of]
(https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/mente). And secondly, it promotes natural methods of improving physical health, such as eating and exercise habits and natural supplements, as an alternative (or at least supplement or prerequisite) to traditional medicine, which has its own risks.

Sure, there are certain businesses within the industry that do not provide what they claim to, as with any unregulated, profit-driven market, and greenwashing runs rampant in all industries these days. But, when you look at some of the most hyped products, like CBD, essential oils, and meditation apps, there is a decent amount of research to back up their claims.

Another important function is that it simply encourages people to be conscious of their health in all aspects of their lives. With this awareness, consumers can choose which products or practices seem credible to them (and that are backed by research and positive reviews), disregard the others, and have another option for improving their health besides the sometimes risky and often expensive and surface level traditional medical care. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Burritos and tacos are essentially the same thing, except that one is wide open and spills so much that half of the taco innards are on the plate by the end of the meal. Also, even the most comfortable way to eat a taco requires you to turn your head a full 45 degrees. Burritos, on the other hand, can have the same contents (maybe even more since you don't have to worry about them overflowing like with tacos), but with less mess and contortion. And, you can dip them without dropping that chunk of beef in it that everyone carefully avoids for the rest of the meal.

Social workers are notoriously overworked and underpaid. Out of all of the “helping professions” (including teaching and nursing), social work is paid the least. This is absolutely absurd to me as social workers do some of the most important work in the world. They work one on one or sometimes in administrative positions with the most disadvantaged populations, which is emotionally draining and time consuming, with irregular hours and frequent overtime. They also have to obtain at least a master’s degree, which neither teachers nor nurses have to do, but hardly get paid enough to pay for this schooling.

How to actually pay social workers more is a tricky problem, since their clients are often of low-income, so if they work for a non-profit there isn’t much room to charge the clients more, and relying on donations is risky. It might be an easier fix for government social workers, as the government could allocate more of its budget to these essential workers. Regardless, paying social workers the wage they deserve should be a priority.

TL;DR: When corporations donate to political campaigns, it puts the politician in debt to them. Since corporate interests are not in the best interest of the people, they should not be being implemented by politicians. Therefore, corporations should not be able to donate to campaigns

Although there are some restrictions on corporate donations to political campaigns, there are just as many (acknowledged) loopholes.

One particularly shady example is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a thinktank comprised of nearly every major corporation, from Exxon to Coca-Cola. Although politicians usually cannot accept donations from corporations, corporations can donate to ALEC (or are already a part of it), and then ALEC essentially campaigns for them; making ads and the like. ALEC also creates model bills that support their agendas and gives them to various state legislators, who are then bound by an understood debt since ALEC is largely responsible for getting them elected.

Similarly, PACs (Political Action Committees) support many politicians and their campaigns.

This is bad for (at least) two reasons - the first being that what is in the best interest of corporations is rarely in the best interest of the people. This is a whole other argument, but basically, their goal is to maximize profit at all costs, and in this case the “costs” include but are not limited to unfair wage, environmental damage, and pushing smaller businesses out. Secondly, their donations put a certain kind of politician in the race, since you have to have an extremely high minimum of money raised before you can even get on the debate stage. Politicians who do not accept this money, who are not “bought”, have a slim chance of even getting on the ballot.

Proponents of the corporate right to donate to campaigns say that it’s a matter of “free speech”, but in fact giving corporations this right reduces their own individual power of “free speech”, since the corporation has a much greater ability to donate than the average person.

Deplatforming may work in some cases as a short term solution, but does not solve the problem entirely...

If the person is an immediate threat, such as many perceive Donald Trump's rhetoric to have been, than it may do good to immediately limit the spread that person's reach. If the person is more of a long term, pestering problem, like Perez Hilton, it depends on the goal of deplatforming. When Hilton got banned from various social media outlets, he just moved to others, but it still reduced his spray. Milo Yiannopoulos, a far-right commentator, reported that he suffered financial hardship as a result of being banned from several social media platforms. This real life consequence may signal that people and organizations (who host speaking events, etc) followed suit and stopped supporting the problematic person.

There is also the risk of simply driving those people to a different platform with less regulation, such as Parler and MeWe. It could also make that persons supporters even angrier and rally behind the deplatformed person as the victim of a censorship conspiracy.

TL;DR: Scientists have observed climate patterns dating back hundreds of thousands of years ago (by studying ice cores, tree rings, glaciers, pollen remains, ocean sediments and more), and concluded that although climate has varied and gone in and out of warm and cold periods, it has never been like it is now.

CO2 levels have risen more than 40% since 1750 (shortly before the industrial revolution). They have risen the same amount in the last two decades as they did in any 1,000 year period on record. Methane levels are higher than they have ever been in the 800,000 years on record, 2.5x higher than right before the industrial revolution. Current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did when the earth was coming out of the Ice Ages.

Most damningly, scientists have models where they have input human-made causes and natural causes and looked at the outcome of both. They have found that when they put in natural causes alone, they don't get the climate changes we are seeing now. When they put in the human caused emissions, they do.

This link is hard to deny. Although the earth's climate has varied, it varied steadily, with predictable highs and lows. Then all of a sudden these peaks and lows started getting more dramatic and sporadic. The only thing that has changed since this started happening is that humans started emitting more greenhouse gases at the same time as we're removing carbon sinks.

TL;DR: It is good for students to be exposed to a variety of political opinions, but teachers should not express one of these opinions as their own. The relationship between teacher and student is that of an authority figure and a learner, which makes a teacher's opinion carry more weight than most.

If discussing politics or in a government class, it would be beneficial for teachers to offer each political perspective, but sharing personal political beliefs makes it harder to distinguish what is opinion and what is true (since teachers always have the right answer in every other area of teaching). Especially for younger kids - if you're learning about the fact of the water cycle and then your teacher starts talking about the pro-life argument, it'd be easy to mistake opinion for fact.

It also has the potential to spread misinformation (which is counter to the school's purpose), since, frankly, teachers are humans influenced by modern media.

Nowadays, kids can easily be exposed to different viewpoints through the internet and social media, and it is increasingly rare in the real world for people to present information in a calm, nonpartisan, even factual way. I think it's important to maintain at least one voice in kids' lives that just gives them the facts, maybe explains what different people believe about those facts, and lets them decide for themselves, without muddying it with their authority's sway.

Obviously all lives matter. But not all lives have been treated like they matter for centuries, so we focus on the ones that are in crisis.

The burning house metaphor puts it simply: if there were two houses next to each other, and only one of them was on fire, would you stand there talking about how both houses are important? Would you hold the firefighter back from putting out the fire because it’s “unfair” that the burning house was getting all of the attention, or “special treatment”? Of course not. It makes perfect sense in these terms, but when it’s “about race” people get uncomfortable, defensive, and avoidant. This suggests to me that people don’t see that the house is burning (despite it being a fact that Black Americans are disproportionately harmed in a number of ways).

In general, slogans for social movements need to be as specific as possible to get anything done. There are a million social issues to be tackled, concerning all the different “lives”, but if we put them all under the same umbrella, the efforts would be too scattered to accomplish anything significant.

“Black Lives Matter” has never been used to mean that no other lives matter, or that they matter less. But All Lives Matter rhetoric, regardless of intention, distracts from the goals and causes an unnecessary rift in the general public at a time when we need all hands on deck.

(This is mostly about dating reality shows, not game shows like the Great British Baking show)

While sometimes amusing at first, the charm of reality TV wears off after a few minutes for me. After that, it becomes glaringly obvious that pretty much every single word is scripted, which then makes it just seem like a poorly written fictional show. I'm all for enjoying "bad" things ironically (like The Room) but most reality shows lack any unique substance and are so predictable that it's just plain bad.

I have a hard time even using it as an escape because I get so discouraged when I see these real people doing such stupid stuff (like meeting each other for the first time at the altar). With purely fictional shows I could laugh at it more easily, but knowing that these real people are participating in such an unnatural thing (even just having a reality show follow you around like KUWTK is unnatural) and potentially ruining their lives makes me wince with stress.

Now, I won't say that that they provide absolutely no entertainment - I've definitely laughed at my fair share of clips, but considering all of the TV out there that is actually "quality", reality TV is at the bottom of the heap.

Most corporate interests are directly at odds with environmentalism. Almost all major corporations use an excessive amount of energy (which largely come from fossil fuels), and create an equally substantial amount of pollution. Because their goal is simply to maximize profit, and turning to more sustainable practices would raise production costs, they have little incentive to change their way.

If we accept this, and that the options are to either impose regulations or…expect them to do the right thing? The answer seems clear. Corporations have historically been hellbent on defying environmental regulations when they do exist, such as the timber industry finding every loophole to encroach on federal property. In fact, the behavior of these corporations is usually the reason these regulations are enacted in the first place, such as the Clean Water Act, which was created when water pollution from industrial sources got out of hand.

Additionally, environmental needs should almost always trump corporate interests. Environmental issues concern everybody; from pollution, to food insecurity, to natural disasters. People should not be involuntarily subject to these conditions just because a company wants to make $2 billion rather than $1 billion.

Given that we cannot trust that these corporations will act in the best interest of the environment (as they have not so far), and that it is usually right that corporate interests be snuffed out in the face of a major environmental threat, the only option is to regulate.

“Riders” are those sneaky little provisions added on to the coattails of a larger bill. They are often unrelated to the larger bill and included because they might not pass on their own without the pressure for Congress and the President to approve the more important part of the bill. Although they may seem inconsequential, they have the potential to do a lot of damage, and they have.

For example, in 1995, President Clinton received a budget bill that included a rider which essentially stated that timber companies could ignore any environmental laws and future court rulings and cut down any trees on federal property that it had ever been offered (before environmental regulations were put in place). He vetoed it the first time, but when it came back with an added section providing relief for those affected by the Oklahoma City Bombing, he had little choice but to sign it. This had detrimental effects on the environment.

This scenario is not the exception. There are countless examples of this feature being abused. By their very nature, they are designed to get controversial (in other words, deserving of attention and debate) provisions passed under the radar. They are also sometimes used for the opposite purpose: to kill a bill by association. The only possible benefit I see of using riders is that it speeds up the legislative process, and allows important, good (although this depends on personal opinion), and time-sensitive policies to be put into action without having to garner lots of public support, but there are other ways to accomplish this if it is truly necessary (such as executive orders) and the practice has done much more harm than good.

Perhaps the most common argument for doing away with public libraries is the idea that they are unnecessary now that the internet allows immediate access to the same resources. This inaccurately assumes that everyone has steady access to the internet, and increases the educational divide.
Nearly 19 million Americans do not have reliable access to the internet. These same people likely also cannot afford to buy new (or even used) books, leaving libraries as their only way to obtain educational materials. If they didn't have this option, they would be at a significant disadvantage, and even more-so without the other community programs libraries offer.

Libraries also provide a sustainable way to read physical copies of books, as a single book can be shared amongst hundreds of community members - reducing the deforestation needed to produce books in mass.

(Pardon if I am misunderstanding your argument and this is in fact what you are arguing for)

I agree that schools need people who are trained in mental health services, but I think it would make more sense for those people to be social workers/counselors, rather than nurses with an additional training in mental health. Social workers are much more specialized and have a more extensive knowledge of mental health issues than those trained primarily in nursing. I think it's best to delegate duties as much as possible to avoid these essential workers being overworked (which could result in the students not getting the care they need).

I don't know that atheists are different from other religious groups in this respect. Other religious groups "shut themselves out" from religions that are not their own, just as atheists shut themselves out from the beliefs that they do not agree with. If atheism (as opposed to agnosticism for these purposes) is saying "there is not a God", and Christianity, for example, is saying "There is the Christian holy trinity and nothing else", these both seem equally closed-minded.

I think this perception of atheism is largely due to atheism not being considered a legitimate "belief system" (for the sake of not getting into the minutiae of how it's a lack of belief). Just as it is assumed that religious people made the decision to believe their respective religion after thorough research and thought, atheism is not a mindless, angst-driven decision, as many believe it to be. So if they are indeed shutting themselves out from beliefs that are not their own, and assuming it's after careful consideration, I don't think it's fair to say that it's any more "unnecessary" than religious people doing the same thing.

The comedian (and atheist) Ricky Gervais once said on Stephen Colbert's show (paraphrased) that as there are roughly 3000 possible gods to believe in, Christians and other religions deny 2999 of those gods, atheists just deny one more.

It's true that sometimes distraction is the best option for dealing with hard emotions. Sometimes our negative or anxious thoughts are simply the result of too much time dwelling, spiraling, going over and over minuscule things and making them major. Examples of this include how solitary confinement (i.e. the ultimate lack of distraction) can ruin people's mental health, and even how mental health issues have risen amidst the COVID pandemic, due at least in part to being confined to ones' house, often alone.

However, this coping strategy should be used sparingly, and not to avoid getting to the root of serious issues. "Bottling it up", as it's often put, doesn't get rid of the problems, but compounds them until they end up impeding daily life anyways, or causing physical damage (health issues caused by stress). Since emotions are often not under conscious control, it doesn't matter if you're not consciously dwelling on the issue; it will express itself somehow anyways. The only way to actually get to the other side is to allow yourself to feel the uncomfortable thoughts/feelings, validate them, and try to understand them.

While this may sound like justice in theory, in practice it often turns in to a vicious cycle that doesn't end after the initial retaliation. It's especially impractical when most revenge does not exactly equal the first offense. In personal relationships, "an eye for an eye" just gives both individuals more to be upset about. I don't completely agree with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy either, as accountability is important, but I think surely we are evolved enough by now to handle our conflicts in more sophisticated and effective ways than primal revenge. As Ghandi says, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole word blind".

Nearly every college requires a certain minimum score on the ACT or SAT to be accepted, but there has been a rising criticism of their effectiveness.

Firstly, these tests rarely reflect what is actually taught in public schools. Studying for them requires an in-depth examination of the test itself, rather than on information acquired throughout high school. A study found that less than half of the ACT questions in the English and math sections aligned with the common core curriculum, which although by no means a federal standard, is the closest thing America has to a uniform curriculum. So, although the ACT and SAT are meant to be ways for colleges to get an idea of a students academic standing by comparing them with the same test, it cannot accurately do this since different states (even different schools in the same county) have different curriculum that may put students at an advantage or disadvantage depending on how closely the test happens to adhere to their education.

Further, even if the test did accurately reflect students knowledge and capability in the four or five subjects included in the ACT and SAT, this does not necessarily correlate to college and career success. College is supposed to be a targeted education; if a student is pursuing a degree in social work, for example, proficiency in SAT science is hardly relevant. Research has found that high school GPA tends to be a better predictor of college success than ACT scores.

There is also the simple fact that some people have difficulty taking tests, most commonly due to nerves resulting from the time limit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2020/02/07/should-colleges-abandon-sat-score-requirements/?sh=5f58f8dbedd3

Year-round schooling - an alternative to the traditional 9 months on/3 months off calendar - often gets a bad rap, mostly due to a reactionary defense of our beloved summer. But it’s hard to deny the benefits, especially when we remember that many of us were twiddling our thumbs by the end of the first month of summer, anyways.

Like their traditional counterparts, year-round schools are in session for a total of 180 days. However, they have shorter instructional periods and shorter breaks; the most common model being the 60/20 (60 days of instruction, 20 days of vacation, repeated). The second most common is the 45/15 model.

The primary advantage of this calendar is that it improves learning retention since students don’t have long gaps in instruction. This is especially important for low-income students who don’t have access to tutors, as well students with learning disabilities or who don’t speak the school’s language as their primary language, as research shows that they are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to the “summer slide” (the loss of information over summer break).
Some studies show that differences in students summer learning experiences in elementary school impact whether they’re likely to obtain a high school diploma or college degree. If students were in school year round, these disparities would be significantly lower.

Additionally, under this model, teachers don’t have to spend the first month of school reviewing material from the last school year (which 2/3 of traditional teachers said they did), and the remedial education offered in the shorter breaks is more helpful than the traditional summer school since students do not have to wait until after their classes are over to get caught up.

For highschoolers, this system might not work as well, since many teenagers need to work summer jobs and some want to participate in internships. By this age, at least some of the summer slide can be avoided since older students have a greater ability to learn independently. But for students in K-8, and especially those already at a learning disadvantage, year-round school ensures fair education.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/yr/guide.asp
https://www.edweek.org/education/after-summer-teachers-spend-a-month-reteaching-students/2013/06
https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdelib/summerslide

Latin is still widely taught in both public and private schools, despite it having little to no function in modern society.

Latin is a dead language, meaning you will never use it unless you are studying ancient Latin texts (and if you want to read Cicero you’re going to need far more than a high school latin course anyways). Some argue that it helps one learn other Romance languages, but this is unnecessary (most people do not learn Latin before Spanish, for example, and fare just fine) and it would be a better use of time to focus on learning the target language directly. Any assistance that learning Latin provides in learning another language is outweighed by the inefficiency of learning a whole language just as a prerequisite for the useful language. It also has the potential to confuse the language learner even more, as they’re trying to distinguish between two similar languages.

I’m all for technically pointless hobbies - Latin is akin to sudoku in my book. But the fact that it is taking up a valuable slot in schools instead of the many practical and increasingly necessary languages, like Russian, Korean, or Portuguese, is problematic.

Satis dictum.

TL;DR: The average child receives their first smart phone by the age of ten, with 25% of 2-5 year olds having a smartphone. Although we cannot yet see the long-term effects of this, research on childhood development suggests that it is best to hold off on giving children smartphones (or other personal media devices) until at least middle school.

In the early stages of brain development, smartphones cause overstimulation, which releases dopamine and adrenaline, making it more addictive than it would be to an older person. This is also a critical time for learning social and life skills, which extensive time on a screen (which = less time spent exploring the real world and having face-to-face interactions) can hinder.

While older youth (around 8-13 for these purposes), have usually already learned basic skills, they are still learning important social-emotional and cognitive skills, such as lengthening attention span and critical thinking. Research supports the idea that smartphones wreck both of these things in grown adults, so we can assume that the effects are only worse on the developing brain who doesn’t know any better. And assuming social media is added to the devices around this age, we must also account for the dangers of cyberbullying, constant comparisons, and a warped sense of reality.

More personally, I think having time to play and be creative is such an important part of childhood and contributes to developing individuality, and just becoming an interesting person. And I have first hand experience, as I got my first at 11 (and social media at 12), and look back with regret on how much time I wasted on it.

https://www.healthline.com/health/childrens-health/stages-of-child-development#if-you-have-concerns
https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/panda-security/when-should-kids-get-smartphones/

TL;DR Compared to its alternatives, plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option, in terms of global warming potential (GWP).

Paper, cotton, and other reusable bags use significantly more fossil fuels to produce and transport than plastic, as well as resources like land and water.

Paper bags in particular, which are the most common alternative to plastic bags, require immense deforestation, produce double the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as plastic bags, 3x more solid waste (although it does biodegrade), and the chemicals used to produce paper are responsible for 70x more air pollution and 50x more water pollution than plastic bags.

In order for alternative bags to be as environmentally efficient as a single use plastic bag, it must be reused several times (for cotton bags, 7,100 times), but they often don't last this long. We also often forget that plastic bags can be reused as well as if not more efficiently than paper bags, since they're less likely to rip. They can also be used as trashcan liners, dog poop bags, and more.

The main drawback of plastic bags is, as you explained, they do not biodegrade as easily as paper bags and often end up littering our oceans and elsewhere. I agree that this is a major problem, but I think it's an easier one to fix than those posed by alternative bags (CO2 emissions in particular).

So, while something needs to be done to reduce the plastic use and waste, banning plastic bags would likely only lead to people using more paper bags, which has even worse environmental effects.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/04/30/plastic-paper-cotton-bags/

I agree that the aspects of prayer that you mention, such as gratitude and thoughtfulness, are very healthy and helpful practices. However, I don't think that these practices have to be "prayer" necessarily - one can easily practice gratitude and reflection through journaling and meditation, for example. When it is in this format, I think it is universally beneficial.

However, when it is formatted as "prayer" (talking to a higher being) I think it depends on the person, and can potentially damage people's mental health. Gratitude is probably still a safe bet, but asking for help, especially if it is a dire situation or a last resort, from a being that may or may not exist and potentially getting no response, can leave the person feeling hopeless and abandoned.

This is not to say it has no benefits, and the meaning of "prayer" can vary by person and situation. But, if it is not coupled with personal responsibility and/or other more concrete forms of self help, simply begging something of a vague higher power can do more harm than good.

TL;DR: MTF athletes should be allowed to participate in competitive female sports after they've reached the stage in their transition where their abilities are similar to that of the cisgendered athletes.

In support of allowing transgender athletes to compete in their post-transition gender's league, I'm seeing a lot of arguments saying that physical strength varies significantly within genders and the "weak woman" and "strong man" is a baseless stereotype. While it's true that physical strength (and testosterone levels) varies within each gender to an extent, it's unfortunately just fact that between the elite men and elite women in each sport, there is on average a 10-12% performance gap. This is why cisgendered men and women don't currently compete against eachother.

So, we can't debate the fact that MTFs (initially) have an athletic advantage. I would also argue that, unless we are going to allow cisgendered men and women to compete with each other, it is reasonable to use this fact to ensure fairness.

To the point that it is wrong for us not to be equally concerned about the FTMs disadvantage - since the objective of sports is to win, it's more controversial to allow people in that have an unfair advantage (being biologically male) than a disadvantage. It's the same with high schools disallowing non-students or aged out students to be on their sports teams. It is unfortunate that FTMs are at a disadvantage, but since it isn't jeopardizing the others potential victory, it doesn't warrant the same public conversation. Plus, there's not much we can do about it - it doesn't make much sense to bar people who have a disadvantage if they acknowledge it and still want to participate.

However, research is showing that after approximately two (more for running) years of starting testosterone, transgender athlete's physical abilities are similar to that of their cisgendered female peers (measured in soldiers). After this point, there is no reason why transgender athletes should not be able to participate in the sport of their respective gender, and it would be discriminatory to exclude them.

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764

As you say, there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of karma. But I don't think that any of the "many incidences" necessarily prove it true either. For example, the example you give of the old man returning the ring is not indicative of some karmic force, but rather a direct result of his previous action. Karma more-so implies that good (or bad) things will come eventually as a result of an energy that you put into the universe. For this reason, receiving a compliment after giving a compliment is not considered karma, it's just the natural order of things.

As far as the cases where the "cause" and "result" are farther apart, I'd chalk this up to coincidence. The strongest evidence for this are the countless examples of good things happening to "bad" people, and bad things happening to "good" people. Unless karma is selective, I don't see how these events could be justified under a belief in karma.

As a way to reduce carbon emissions, many are looking to renewable resources as an alternative to fossil fuels. But Hope Jahren, biologist and author of “The Story of More”, says that the renewable resources we have available at the moment cannot realistically support the current energy use of the United States. To power America using wind, we would need roughly one million wind turbines, for hydro power we would need fifty Hoover dams in each state, and solar energy would require a land area the size of South Carolina entirely dedicated to solar panels.

She adds that the problem is that we keep increasing our energy use (and population, which in turn increases energy use). So while we should still be working on switching the energy we do use to renewable resources, and looking for more efficient renewable resources, it is equally or more important to cut down on energy use, using the phrase “use less, share more”. (“Share more”refers to the need to equally distribute energy to “under-powered” countries, or for major companies to cut down on energy to give poorer countries a chance to use energy to develop their countries without further contributing to carbon emissions).

By definition, private prisons (also called for-profit prisons) make a profit for each prisoner they shelter. This gives private prisons incentive to incarcerate more prisoners (including non-violent prisoners who should not be in prison) and keep prisoners incarcerated for longer than necessary.

Studies have also concluded that private prisons are less safe and have worse conditions than public prisons, largely due to cutting operational costs to increase profit.

https://ndsmcobserver.com/2020/09/abolish-private-prisons/

Emphasis on the word "proud". It is one thing to be grateful for something - I am glad that I was born in America, which, comparatively to much of the world, is a comfortable place to live. But I had nothing to do with its creation, nor did anyone that I have a close relationship with, so I cannot be proud of it, per se.

Pride is defined as "a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated".
Obviously, people use it more widely than that, such as with sports teams, but that either means that they're using it to mean some form of "glad", or they've over identified with the thing. With sports teams, this isn't much of an issue, but over identifying with a country can cause some serious problems, including ethnocentrism and blind loyalty.

It also seems that the idea of pride in one's country is rather ambiguous. What are they proud of? A country is not one singular thing, and most are far from perfect. Are you "proud" that your country allows you to have freedom of speech, or access to opportunities that other countries wouldn't allow (a commonly cited reason for nationalism in America). This is not pride, this is gratefulness. So, to people who claim to have "pride" in their country, I would just ask them to clarify what exactly they are referring to.

Orphans are at an elevated risk for abuse, suicide, mental and physical health issues, and criminality (males placed in foster care between the ages of 13-18), to name a few.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs lists the three bottom (most important) human needs as physiological needs (food, water, sleep), safety needs, and love and belonging. The lack of a stable, loving family jeopardizes all three of these rungs.

Also, pregnancy and childbirth seem horrendous. For many women, it consists of 9 months of nausea, followed by what is widely held as several hours of the most excruciating pain humans experience naturally, the risk of death, and, for 10-20% of women, severe postpartum depression.

Nearly every mom would say that this is all worth it, which I don't doubt since they now know the human they created. But when you look at it next to the immense suffering of the more than 140 million orphans in the world, it hardly seems necessary.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7043744/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537114001146
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465590/

Unfortunately, most "movements"/ ideas get adopted by people who don't accurately represent the true intention of it, and these voices also tend to be the loudest. Think feminism and the bad rap it's gotten because of the few that misrepresent it, despite the fact that most people agree that women are equal to men.

So while there are definitely some on the forefront that make minimalism into their ego-scratcher or try to force it on others, it still simply means "owning fewer possessions" (according to becomingminimalist.com). This is followed by "it is about intentionality" and a few other "it is" statements. While one personally may not feel compelled to sell everything except their mattress and one outfit, the basic idea that someone would want to declutter their life (externally and internally) makes perfect sense and seems genuine.

Also, I don't think that them owning expensive things contradicts minimalism. By cutting down on quantity, quality is emphasized. So it's not supposed to look like "you hadn't thought about it at all" or buying the dollar store version of the few things you do own, but "it is about intentionality" about what you own and spend your money on.

The only issue I have with minimalism on the trend level is that it can make people feel guilty for finding joy in possessions, which defeats the purpose.

It's also worth noting that what you eat for breakfast strongly affects health, maybe more than whether or not you eat food in the morning. This is relevant because there is an absurd amount of sugar in most breakfast foods (cereal, granola, breakfast muffins/scones, pancakes/waffles, some yogurts); research has shown that the average American breakfast contains more sugar than any other nutrient. And bacon/sausage (often processed) aren't great for you either:(.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163505/

From experience, my school had a very loose attendance policy (and the front desk lady at my high school would change my attendance to "present" without a question), and this greatly unmotivated me and many others from being in class. Most students cannot be trusted to regularly attend class if it is not mandatory.

Regularly attending class is crucial to succeeding in school, this has been supported by much research (1). Missing a few days here and there can be made up (and most schools allow for a good amount of skip days), but in excess it prevents the student from understanding the material. Poor school attendance has also been linked to a higher rate of criminal behavior.

It's true that some students have personal lives that interfere with their ability to attend school regularly, such as working, or unreliable transportation. However, the solution to this problem should not be to make attendance voluntary, which neglects that child's need to go to school and negatively affects the rest of the students, but to find ways to ensure that those students can make it to school.

(Certain truancy laws definitely need to be reconsidered and made more flexible, though.)

1. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/attendancedata/chapter1a.asp

I've never understood why people are so hush hush about universal things...if it's not a harmful idea/thought, or if most or all people experience it, it should be fair game to talk about. Making it taboo only creates unnecessary problems, like sexual ignorance or shame. It seems silly for the whole world to go around thinking the same things but never talking about it just because that's the norm.

Side note: Cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker has an interesting theory that the reason sex is such a taboo topic (when taken out of the context of "love") is because it reminds us of our animal nature, which reminds us of our mortality, which we don't like.

If you check the news or social media at any given moment, you’ll likely see some version of “the world is ending”. Granted, many people have seen more than their fair share of hardships the past few years (esp 2020), and they are all valid and tragic. In spite of this, it’s important to remember that we are still much better off than humanity has ever been.

Here are a few reasons:

Extreme poverty is decreasing substantially - by 47 million people every year since 1950.

Life expectancy has doubled globally in the last century, and the life expectancy gap between the poorest and richest countries is steadily closing. Affecting this data is lower child and childbirth mortality rates, in addition to lower contagious and non-communicable disease death rates.

Homicide and other violent crime rates have fallen in the past century.

Literacy levels are rising globally.

World wide battle deaths have been on the decline over the last couple decades.

These are just a few of the most quantifiable ways that life has improved significantly since just a few centuries ago, but there are many more that pertain that pertain more to specific areas and quality of life.

And think about this - just one century ago, if you were born in the early 1900s, you would have seen both world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, the rise of terrorism, and the 1918 pandemic, just to name a few. They probably thought the apocalypse was imminent, but it wasn't then, and it isn't now.

1. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years
2. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
3. https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news

TL;DR: The idea that there is one soul out of the 7 billion “souls” on the planet that is most perfectly compatible with your own, and that the two souls are destined to collide, is unfortunately logistically impossible, and believing it can be harmful. Lots of people could be equally compatible partners, it just depends on when you meet them and how much effort you put in.

Some people are compatible, some people are not. Of the people who are compatible, there may be some that are more compatible than others, but for the most part it is more a matter of difference of compatibility. Different people can be compatible in different ways, connecting with different parts of you, even depending on the stage of life you’re in. And ultimately, it’s impossible to know if there is someone more compatible out there.

If this person did exist, Randall Munroe, NASA roboticist, puts the odds of finding them this way: “Let’s suppose you lock eyes with an average of a few dozen new strangers each day, if 10 percent of them are close to your age, that’s around 50,000 people in a lifetime. Given that you have 500,000,000 potential soul mates [total people in your age range], it means you’ll only find true love in one lifetime out of 10,000.”

Further, believing in “soulmates” (as they are traditionally understood) can even be damaging, as it puts too much pressure on the relationship to be perfect, and may discourage the individuals from working on their problems or accepting their partners flaws if they are in search of a perfect match. Conversely, it can cause people to overlook significant issues if they’ve convinced themselves that this is their soulmate.
It can also increase disappointment during breakups if one believes that there is no-one else for them.

TL;DR
Our lives are more determined by social factors than by our own choices.

The myth that one’s successes and failures are entirely up to one’s own efforts is at the center of much of American values and policies. Believing this gives us a sense of control over our lives, something to aspire to, but most of all, it lets us off the hook for not helping those in need.

The myth of individualism is promulgated by stories of rags to riches, even though these stories are often the exception to the rule. People’s lives are largely determined by social factors like class, geographical environment, family, gender/race, etc.

For example: there are two people with the same innate intelligence/capability. One is a white man born into a wealthy family, which allowed him to go to boarding schools (which have an extremely high rate of acceptance into ivy league schools), have tutors, and professional connections upon graduation.

The other is a black woman born into generational poverty, who attends the local public school and has to work from a young age to help support her family, which affects her performance in school. She cannot afford college, and since everyone she knows is in the same situation, she has no-one to ask for help/connections. She also has to go above and beyond to combat gender and racial prejudice.

While it is always possible that a person in the woman’s position could “rise above”, it is clear that one of these people has an overwhelming advantage, due to nothing of his own merit. One has to work much harder to even have a chance at the same opportunities that one is born with. There are a million variations of this example and they make up our entire country and social hierarchy.

Whether it is society’s responsibility to level the playing field (to which I would say emphatically yes) is a separate debate, but we at least need to be willing to admit that they are in fact uneven, and that we do not determine our lives as much as we have been conditioned to think we do. Recognizing individualism as a myth is the first step in addressing inequality.

There is a tendency among advocates (social, environmental, etc.) to rely on fatalism to convince people of the severity of “the cause”. Fatalism takes the tone of impending doom and spends an inordinate amount of time on the problems and what is at stake, with much less emphasis on solutions.

The goal of this approach is to evoke strong emotions such as fear and anger, in hopes that this will fuel the necessary change. However, research has shown that fatalism usually backfires and causes people to either feel hopeless/powerless, completely dismiss the claims, or, over time, become numb to the constant crises (known as compassion fatigue).

It is extremely important that people understand the severity of a given issue. But, if we want people to be willing to accept the issue as fact and feel empowered to do something about it, the task is to balance this sense of urgency with a clear plan of action.

https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/article/dont-feed-fatalism-put-forward-solutions-instead/

The lame duck period is not without its faults, like the potential to “sabotage” the incoming presidents term. But the reasons that it exists still outweigh this risk.

It is still important that we allow time to verify the votes, even if it is sometimes taken advantage of. This is why we have other processes in place to prevent this “sabotage” from going too far. Case in point: even in as strong a pursuit of overturning the election results as we saw in the 2020 election, it still didn’t make it all the way through.

It could even be argued that tensions would worsen if people perceived that they were not given a fair contesting period (rather than preventing the riot).

More importantly, it gives the president time to learn the ropes and put in place their own staff, which is crucial in ensuring a capable president.

All holidays contribute to and are influenced by capitalism/consumerism to some extent, simply by purchasing goods and companies advertising, but capitalism is not the root of most holidays, including Valentine's Day.

Although the exact origins of Valentine's Day are unclear, it is known that it began around the Middle Ages in Europe as a way to honor the fallen St. Valentine (patron saint of lovers), as he was beheaded on February 14. It also has some connection to a poem by Chaucer, and to the beginning of the bird's mating season. Regardless, lovers have been exchanging notes and some gifts on Valentine's Day for centuries.

Socialist countries, such as Cuba and China, also celebrate Valentine's Day, and in a similar fashion as Western society; buying gifts, flowers, exchanging cards, going to dinner, etc.

Gift giving exists far beyond capitalism, it can be traced back as far as cavemen. And, Valentine's Day (and most holidays where gift exchanges occur, such as birthdays and Christmas) has a purpose/origin other than gift giving. So while it may be something that capitalism takes advantage of, it's not accurate to say that it is the driving force behind Valentine's Day, or any other holiday for that matter. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Even that you might not be putting much effort into your clothing could be considered an expression, like that you value other things over fashion/you're busy, etc.

Our culture’s meat-centric diet is having detrimental effects on our environment and our health.

Environment
(PETA said it best, so all quotes in this section are from their website)
The meat industry is one of the largest contributors to climate change and deforestation in the world. More specifically, the land, food, water, and energy necessary to sustain these animals is depleting natural resources and raising carbon emissions.

According to PETA, “it takes 683 gallons of water to produce just 1 gallon of milk. It takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef, while producing 1 pound of tofu only requires 244 gallons of water. By going vegan, one person can save approximately 219,000 gallons of water a year,” (1).

Animals on U.S. factory farms produce roughly 500 millions of (bacteria and virus filled) manure every year, which pollutes the water and air by way of runoff and factory farmers spraying liquid manure in the air (to get around water pollution limits).

Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change by way of reducing the amount of trees available to store carbon, as well as releasing fossil fuels by burning the forest. Cattle-ranching accounts for 80% of this deforestation, and PETA notes that “it takes almost 20 times less land to feed someone on a plant-based (vegan) diet than it does to feed a meat-eater since the crops are consumed directly instead of being used to feed animals.”


Health
Protein has long been the selling point of eating meat for good health. But now that there are other options for protein, such as meat analogue, this benefit pales in comparison to its risks.

Meat is high in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol and leads to a greater risk of heart disease and stroke. It’s also pumped full of antibiotics, which “undermines the efficacy of antibiotics, and therefore the ability to safely perform transplants, joint replacements, C-sections, dialysis, and other procedures” (2), and increases inflammation.

Because of this, and because fruits and vegetables are so high in crucial nutrients, vitamins and minerals, vegetarians generally have lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer and chronic diseases than meat-eaters. And increasingly, many professional athletes are choosing plant-based diets to help with recovery and energy levels.

It is hard to transition, but not impossible. There are plenty of great meat (and dairy) alternatives out there (like Impossible and Beyond “meat”). Even if every person reduced their animal product consumption by just half, our planet and our health would be much better off.

1. https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/is-it-better-to-be-a-vegetarian#1
2. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-environment/
3. https://thebeet.com/10-reasons-to-declare-your-independence-from-meat-dairy-6-is-to-get-rid-of-dark-circles/

Roughly 80,000 prisoners in the U.S. are in solitary confinement (being held in a cell for 22-24 hours a day for at least 15 days) (3).This is done as punishment for breaking prison rules, or for the safety of the prisoner or others. The latter is a valid concern, but because of the vast amount of dangers associated with isolation, we need to find a better way to resolve these issues.

Humans need social interaction and variety (and time outdoors) - this is supported by plenty of research (2). Effects of isolation include psychosis, paranoia, anger, suicidal ideation, depression and anxiety. It can even result in increased violence/poor impulse control, therefore worsening the situation rather than resolving it. Roughly 30% of prisoners who experienced solitary confinement for 30 days (the numbers were not all that different for those who only experienced one day) showed signs of serious psychological distress. According to some reports, isolation can be equally as distressing as physical torture. Prolonged solitary confinement can also cause difficulty assimilating back into society.

This is especially concerning considering the amount of inmates who have been wrongfully convicted or who have not yet gone through trial.
For example, Kalief Browder was held for three years without trial at Rikers Island, two of which he spent in solitary confinement. When his trial finally came around, he was released due to insufficient evidence. Unfortunately, after being vocal about the damages of his prison/solitary experience, Browder committed suicide two years after his release (after multiple failed attempts while in solitary).

Additionally, of those who are in solitary as a punitive measure, many were not because of violent crimes.

Regardless of guilt, however, no human should be subject to this kind of treatment, especially when it actually makes matters worse. To eventually get to a place where we can completely abolish solitary confinement, though, we need effective alternatives in place. Solutions include reducing the amount of people who go into solitary confinement in the first place by increasing mental health treatment (since many in solitary have pre-existing mental disorders), creating de-escalation spaces where inmates can retreat to gather themselves if they’re feeling on edge, changing the conditions in restrictive housing, and implementing short maximum periods. Data has showed that prisons where these practices were implemented saw a decrease in assaults (leading to restrictive housing) by 40-90% (1).

1. https://www.vera.org/research/safe-alternatives-to-solitary-confinement
2. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/solitary-confinement-effects#criticisms
3. http://apps.frontline.org/solitary-by-the-numbers/

The case for premarital sex being immoral really only works inside the context of religion (mostly Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism). Apart from this and personal reasons, this idea doesn't hold up well, as sex is natural, pleasurable, and not harmful if between two consenting adults. All of these characteristics defy the traditionally understood meaning of "immoral".

Even within the realm of religion there is debate over whether the text was interpreted accurately or not. For example, the Bible does not specifically mention "premarital sex", but rather refers to "sexual immorality". This has been interpreted to mean premarital sex, but this is not self evident.

While one's views on this subject largely depend on religious orientation, because it is not harmful and typically would not fit the description of secular immorality, it would be illogical to label premarital sex as universally immoral.

Further, the excessive shame surrounding premarital sex, also known as purity culture, has resulted in a number of issues for many women, including but definitely not limited to shame, sexual ignorance and intimacy issues in healthy relationships.

The things that astrology "accurately explains" are mostly due to vague writing and readers cherrypicking the parts that could apply to them (which could apply to anyone).

There is hardly any hard evidence against astrology because there is no evidence for it. It's hard to disprove something thats only proof is "that sounds like me". But, for example, this is the Aries (my sign) horoscope for Jan 24 2021:

"Today is all about the community you live and work in. Your place in the world could be something you're questioning today, and that is totally normal and wonderfully healthy. Do you take the same role in every situation? Are you always the leader, always the follower, or do you take turns? These are the questions you should address. You need to make sure you're being true to yourself and not compromising for the sake of popularity or politics."

Who couldn't find something that resonates in this? Who isn't, on some level, questioning their place in the world every day? Whether you're the "leader" or the "follower", which are polar opposites, you could find something for you.

Other tidbits that make the reliability of astrology unlikely include the fact that the Babylonians straight up left out a 13th constellation so that the zodiac signs would fit the 12 calendar months, and that daily horoscopes vary depending on what magazine/website you're reading.

https://www.astrology.com/horoscope/daily/aries.html
https://time.com/5867647/nasa-zodiac-star/

Miley Cyrus once noted the irony of the controversy surrounding female nipples, explaining that most of society is comfortable with the rest of the breast area (side boob, underboob, cleavage), which is the part exclusive to women, but the nipple, which both men and women have, is largely prohibited from being displayed.

In the virtual world, posting female nipples violates most platforms community guidelines.
In real life, most states legislation on female toplessness is somewhat vague, banning “intimate parts” from being shown. Of course, these “intimate parts” have only been deemed so because of society’s sexualization of the female body.
Of course, it is natural for there to be an element of attraction to both the male and female bodies - otherwise there would be significantly less procreation. But when comparing the two, there is nothing inherently more sexual about a females chest than that of a mans (in fact, it serves more of a nonsexual purpose than a mans through breastfeeding, which is also banned in many states). Therefore, the problem lies in the fact that they are not treated as such under the law.

Beyond a common sense argument, #Freethenipple advocates argue that it violates the 14th amendment by creating a law that applies only to women. The New Hampshire Supreme Court dismissed this argument by ruling that it bars public nudity of both men and women, and “the traditional understanding of what constitutes nudity” includes female breasts. This is poor reasoning in the absence of any other legitimate distinction between male and female nipples, because “traditional understanding” has been overruled plenty of times. This is how traditional understanding is changed, at least in part. At one point, the traditional understanding was that everyone except for white men were inferior and the law supported this. When it was realized that there was nothing else to support this discrimination, the law was changed. At the time that the law was changed, there were still many who opposed it, but over time people got used it - and this is how society evolves.

Female nipples are similar - the only reason to ban them is because that is the status quo and people have grown accustomed to it, but this is not sufficient enough to justify discrimination that is otherwise baseless.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-topless/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-free-the-nipple-in-topless-women-case-idUSKBN1ZC1HQ

Accidentally deleted my previous reply, but so true! Very interesting perspective, I hadn't thought of it like that.

Legalizing marijuana would decrease overall deaths

While reliable numbers on the matter are lacking, it is known that marijuana bought from illegal sources is often laced with other, more harmful substances, such as fentanyl. If marijuana was legal, the FDA would be able to regulate it to ensure that the product does not contain any toxins. The government and other organizations would also be able to better educate people on harm prevention, as it does with alcohol.

Legalizing marijuana could also decrease overall deaths by reducing the amount of people who use opioids for pain relief. States with legal medical marijuana have a 25% lower rate of prescription painkiller deaths (1).

Marijuana poses no significant health risks

Both physically and mentally, the risks of marijuana are very minimal. There is no strong correlation between marijuana and cancer or long term mental health issues. In some studies, marijuana has actually been associated with a decreased risk for head and neck cancer (2). This is in stark contrast to cigarettes and alcohol, which have detrimental effects on physical health and yet are legal.

Marijuana consumption is not recommended for young people, as developing brains are more sensitive to the effects of weed, but alcohol is also illegal for those under 21. Weed would be the same.

It would contribute to the economy

For a more detailed look at the projections of how legalizing weed would boost the economy, see the link below (4). Generally, though, states that have legalized marijuana have seen an impressive increase in tax revenue. It would also create thousands of much needed jobs.

Lastly, legalizing marijuana would have positive effects on the criminal justice system

Roughly 40,000 of America’s inmates are behind bars for marijuana offenses (3). 89% of all marijuana arrests are for possession only. That means that a significant amount of resources and taxpayer money is going towards imprisoning non-violent prisoners for a harmless crime.

Worse, after coming into contact with the criminal justice system once, there is a high rate of recidivism, largely due to prison trauma and the lack of opportunities that comes with having a record. In other words, locking people up for harmless crimes, such as marijuana possession, only increases the chance that they commit other crimes.

1. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/states-with-legal-marijuana-have-fewer-overdose-deaths-082614#1

2. https://drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana

3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanoleck/2020/06/26/with-40000-americans-incarcerated-for-marijuana-offenses-the-cannabis-industry-needs-to-step-up-activists-said-this-week/?sh=35ea2276c16f

   4.https://marijuana.procon.org

(There's currently no "for" argument, so @ whoever posted this, apologies if I don't effectively respond to your opinion.)

A major qualm I have with the military is that it often takes advantage of poor youth and their lack of post high school opportunities by flaunting the accessibility and extensive benefits (I personally went to a low income high school and a wealthier one and noticed extreme differences in the amount of recruiters who came to each). This whole practice of relying on the impoverished to fight our wars simply because they feel they have no other option feels a little slimy.

However, while this may be a problem on the military's side, from the perspective of the individual joining the military (as this question is addressed to the people joining, not recruiting), joining for this reason has the opposite connotation. When one is presented with two options - 1., serve your country (how it is presented) and get a lifetime of benefits, or 2., work at McDonald's for the foreseeable future because you can't even afford college, it seems like a pretty clear decision. Beyond understandable, I think it is totally morally justifiable to choose to take care of and set up a sustainable life for oneself even if it means joining a flawed organization. Now, if the military was an inexcusably terrible organization, that might be a different story, but it currently does provide some essential and even beneficial services. It also depends on what the person knows about the military (if all of their information is from the recruiter who is getting paid to fluff it up), because "morally justifiable", in the real world at least, depends on each person and the choices they could have realistically made given their actual circumstances.

First of all, I agree with you that the Republicans we see storming the capitol building are definitely a threat to national security. It is also true that, since 1994, far-right extremist groups have accounted for more domestic terrorist acts and plots than any other group (1). However, as much as I personally do not find myself in alignment with most Republican values, I'm not sure I'm completely convinced that it is the entire Republican Party we should be concerned about.

For all of the Republicans who still approve of Trump, and even of the capitol riot, there are also plenty who do not. I've even heard rumors of a party split, but as that has not happened yet, that means that there are still a decent amount of people who still identify with the Republican Party because there is no other option (that aligns with their beliefs) but do not support the extremism that has been happening as of late. Even McConnell, a staunch conservative, has expressed grievances about the state that Trump has imposed upon the Republican Party and is open to impeaching him.

I'd argue that the true culprit here is the two party system, which has the potential to trigger our tribalistic instincts, forcing people to pick the group they most identify with and fiercely defend it to preserve their own interests. It requires people to choose what they feel most passionate about and potentially sacrifice everything else on the ballot. This contributes to much of the extremism that we see today, as it creates an us vs them dynamic where, as unproductive as it sounds, the more scrutiny a party (or members thereof) is under (as the Republican Party has been under the past few years), the firmer its members stand by it.

And I think that lumping everyone that belongs to a broad party together as a national threat poses the risk of 1. encouraging the left to disregard any information or perspectives that come from the right, and 2. to cause the right to become defensive and take up an even harsher position.

So, ultimately, although the opinion that much of the Republican Party is straying into dangerous territory may have some merit, it might be more helpful to think of this issue and its solution in terms of expanding the options people can choose from so they don't have to justify the extremism in order to vote the way they want to on, say, taxes, rather than invalidating a good amount of people's views by grouping them together with extremists as a national threat. Several GOP politicians have announced that they are leaving the Republican Party and registering as independent. If there were another option that better represented these people, perhaps more would be willing to make the switch, making it easier to label exactly what group poses a threat to national security.

1. https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

There has been much debate over the last few years about whether statues portraying confederate leaders should remain standing in public places. Proponents for the removal of the statues argue that the statues glorify racism and are therefore inappropriate for modern society. Apart from this general thesis, though, perhaps the best way to offer the case for removal is to respond to the most common anti-removal arguments.

“Removing historic statues is an attempt to erase American history.”

Removing statues is a far cry from erasing history. Most statues were not created for the purpose of preserving history - historians agree that, given that most Confederate statues were erected in the early 1900s and the 1950s/1960s - both periods of major civil rights movements, the intention was to send a message of support for white supremacy. Statues/monuments in general serve the very specific purpose of honoring a person deemed to be worthy of immortalization via stone. This is why there are a plethora of monuments of Jesus or Buddha, but statues depicting “the devil” are much more controversial. Schools will continue to teach American history, the removal of statues has no impact on this. In fact, many proponents of removing the statues also advocate for a more comprehensive and accurate coverage of these events in schools. And, who of us actually learned about Robert E. Lee simply from looking at a life-size replica of him?

“People have a right to their own opinions, even if it’s not mainstream, and to express those views however they want.”

This is true. No-one can stop you from building a monument on your private property (hence a larger than life statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate general and KKK Grand Wizard, that is visible from the highway in Nashville but is unable to be removed). However, it is whether they should be constructed on public/government property that is contested. The Confederacy represents oppressive and discriminatory values that are (or should be) counter to the ideals of our current government, and therefore would be inappropriate to stand in front of capitol buildings and the like. It is easily agreed that a statue of Hitler outside the Reichstag would be unacceptable. The fact that it is not so with statues such as the one of Robert E. Lee outside the U.S. Capitol (recently removed but heavily contested) indicates a difference in opinion not about whether or not history should be preserved in that way but rather about whether that history is something we are proud of or not.

“They weren’t all bad, they did some good things too.”

Surely Confederate soldiers had some redeeming qualities, even Nathan Bedford Forrest ended up speaking out against racism near the end of his life. But they are primarily known for being associated with the Confederacy. One would not erect a statue of a notorious murderer simply because he also donated to charity. Moreover, there are so many people who have done important, good work, so if we can only choose a few to make life-size replicas of, it would seem to make sense to choose those who aren’t also affiliated with the Confederacy.

As far as the argument that the Confederacy stood for more than slavery, that it’s simply about southern heritage and the secession was about states’ rights in general, it is worth noting that the Confederacy explicitly associated itself with the interest of preserving slavery. Most notably, the Mississippi declaration of secession states “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world”. This interest was even pursued at the expense of the states’ rights that they allegedly fought for - South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, did so following rulings in Northern states which prohibited state officials from complying with the federal fugitive laws. In the Confederate constitution, it is written that “In all such territory the institution of n***o slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government”. And given that the Confederacy lasted but five years, it could hardly be considered a “heritage” outside of the context of slavery.

This is not a comprehensive argument for the removal of Confederate statues, and there is a separate debate over whether they should be destroyed or preserved in museums, but the bottom line is that these statues primarily serve to glorify a painful history, signals toleration of discrimination, and do not/should not represent the present and future that we are trying to create, and therefore should be removed from public property.

https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880/confederate-statues-were-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-future

https://www.procon.org/headlines/historic-statue-removal-top-3-pros-cons/

Unlimited Supreme Court terms were created as a protection against the whims of the executive, as English monarchs had a tendency to fire judges if the positions of the judges differed from their own. However, due in part to the increased life expectancy and polarization of the modern era, life long tenures no longer encourage judicial independence, at least not to a degree that is worth the numerous unintended consequences it has generated.

The issue and its causes are multi-faceted, but it can mostly be attributed to a simple fact of modern day, non-political life. The average life expectancy is steadily increasing, meaning that it is not uncommon for justices to serve for approximately 30 years. This increased power, combined with the ever growing power struggle between Democrats and Republicans, has incentivized presidents to nominate someone who will most fervently uphold the values of their party, and senators to manipulate the confirmation process to assure this.

Additionally, since the vacancies are left up to chance (when a judge either dies or chooses to retire), some presidents have the opportunity to appoint several justices (Trump appointed 3), while other simply luck out (Carter had 0). Since the justices are likely to strongly reflect the ideology of the president who appointed them (and when, with the electoral college in place, the president may not even represent the majority of the country), this results in an inaccurate representation of the American people and modern values.

Evidence of this politicization in action include former Chief Justice Earl Warren choosing to resign under Lyndon B. Johnson in order to avoid being replaced by a Republican president, and Mitch McConnell blocking Obama's 2016 nominee Merrick Garland but then eliminating the filibuster for a Republican nominee and confirming Amy Coney Barrett under the same circumstances for which he blocked Garland.

The most commonly proposed solution is a limit of 18 years, meaning that a new justice would be appointed every two years, allotting two nominations to each president. This would give them ample time to learn the job, and still provide the cushion of being relatively unaffected by current political pressures by way of not having to win re-election every few years, while ensuring that the people tasked with making some of the most crucial decisions for the country accurately represent its people.

More information on the case for Supreme Court term limits can be found here:

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2020/08/03/488518/need-supreme-court-term-limits/