Oh boy! It seems like we live in a world of outrage. There’s always something in your news feed. It’s hard to escape that celebrity scandal or political debauchery. You might already become used to extravagant sex talk. But it’s undeniable that we live in the constant cycle of controversies. There is always something new. And we’re growing dull by the day.
Trump‘s inflammatory statements get you hardly excited nowadays. He depleted his bank of controversies (I hope so). Even the Senate impeachment trial wasn’t that spectacular.
With that said, let’s dive into the most controversial topics of today. I’ll be brief because every point might become a bottomless pit of opinions. It’s important to discuss the issues written below. But for the sake of the article, I’ll keep it readable.
Also, I’d try to stay unbiased(easier said than done) and try to let you decide which side is the right one.
This one is hard to debate. Both sides of the argument crossed the point of no return. They would love to see heads from the other side impaled on spikes.
Pro-life claims life starts at conception. And they’ll argue that all life is valuable. While no one disagrees with the former, there is a catch.
Pro-choice argues that women have the moral right to decide what to do with their bodies. They strive to be wholesome human beings, not mere tools of birthing children. Also, most of the abortion laws are being chosen by older gentlemen in higher offices. Women hardly have a say in this issue.
The idea of god and having a superordinate principle is complicated if you dive deep into the matter. It’s hard to wrap your mind around the concept of something being more powerful than the human race. Something omnipresent. The creators of light and life.
The critics will often say the holy books don’t hold much common sense. The statement gets more intense in current times. It’s easy to make fun of religion. Almost every stand-up comedian used it as inspiration at least at one point in their career. The leading critics would say that religion gives simple answers to existential questions.
“Religion is opium for the masses — Karl Marx.”
Believers tend to find spiritual purpose in prayer. They also tend to find a sense of community. It gives them a sense of direction in life. No one can argue that inherent values to any religion are wrong. Complex beliefs held societies together for thousands of years.
The shape of the Earth
I can’t even begin to voice this one while trying to keep an unbiased perspective. I heard about Flat Earth society on the internet. I thought it was a joke before I actually spoke to one true believer.
Arguments in favor of flat earth come from the bible. Many depictions are somewhat referring to the shape of the planet. You could interpret some to fuel the belief of land being a flat surface. “Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” — Chronicles 16:30
The argument against is, well, science. We’ve established the shape of the earth even before the birth of Christ. Pythagoras wrote the Earth is round around 500 B.C. Since then. Physicists, sailors, and astronauts have confirmed the theory countless times. Any pilot or an airline passenger has seen the curve. Your physics teacher taught you about the ship sailing over the horizon. The hall disappears first. There hasn’t been a single scientific evidence claiming the Earth is flat. Nothing but a round planet (egg-shaped ellipsoid ).
War on drugs
It’s safe to say that drugs have won the war. Recently, a drama unfolded in Mexico where the Feds captured El Chapo’s son. Ed Calderon said on JRE that the arrest was unintentional. He said officers were more shocked than Ovidio himself.
Reportedly, the Sinaloa cartel launched a counter-attack against the Mexican government. They held eight soldiers hostage and demanded Ovidio’s release. Massive shoutout took place in the Mexican city Culiacán. Finally, the cartel defeated the Mexican army, and Ovidio walked out of there as a free man.
Two major arguments.
Legalize-all-drugs argument directs at the prevention of crime. If drugs were legal, the criminal aspects of production, trafficking, and selling wouldn’t be that attractive. With drugs being legal, there would be less money in the pocket of cartels. Such regulations might drive down corruption. End consumers would get a cheaper and more reliable product. It would stop an unimaginable number of deaths by dirty substance (product cut with deadly stuff). It would happen both by purifying drugs and slicing the criminal activity. And the state would be able to tax more items.
The argument in favor of criminalization is an emotional one. It comes from fear. Legalizing substances with the potential of abuse might have greave implications for the major population. The number of lives and families ruined by drug abuse is ever-increasing around the globe. It’s hard to see what such a lifestyle has done to individuals and their families and let it slide. Supporters believe in fighting illicit substances with police, courts, and felony charges. Supporters often argue that when something is illegal, it steers away most of the recreational users. It limits accessibly and increases risk. Such policies do work in certain places. Countries like China assert capital punishment upon drug traffickers. Users and dealers often get life in prison.
Prostitution was around since the dawn of time. It’s believed to be the oldest proffesion. Women and men trade their bodies for monetary benefit since the dawn of time. Today, It’s a taboo. Such business will always raise an eyebrow or two. But It’s impossible to imagine a world without prostitution.
The general prostitution laws vary from country to country.
Some of the most developed world economies have legalized and monetized their sex industries. Among those countries are Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands. The business seems to thrive. They consider prostitution as a service exchanged between two consenting adults. The working ladies have their medical insurance. They enjoy a generally safe work environment. Supporters argue that providing better conditions for the industry workers profits the society. The consumers are safe, there is less criminal activity, and the state gets a cut with taxing the service.
The other side demands that prostitution is a human right abuse. They also see it as an attack on the dignity and worth of human beings. Individual advocates defy legalization for moral and religious reasons. In most countries, sexual services are flat-out illegal. Some believe that women are especially vulnerable to human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Such concerns seem to revolve more around the developing world.
We share this planet with millions of Instagram-fitness-instructors and an equal number of bro-scientists. Social media continually bombards us with new and better-than-before diets and nutritional regimes.
Nutritionism became a science discipline available at your nearest community college. The fact that human needs are diverse when it comes to food, it’s hard to say which group holds the final truth. By trial and error, we can often find what works best for us at a given time. These things can change as we grow older or change lifestyles.
I’ll focus on two polarized groups; vegans and meat-eaters.
The vegan argument comes mainly from moral reasons. Animals are living breathing beings and you should regard them as such. A certain amount of new studies claim to establish a health benefit in meat abstinence. The main focus of Vegan activism seems to be the grim meat industry around the world. Documentaries like Game Changers are entertaining, watchable, and point to certain truths.
“Why would you eat rotten flesh, when you can eat life” — Rashad Evans.
Other studies seem to see the other perspective. Arguments in favor of eating meat might come from an evolutionary point of view. Social science (Anthropology 101) align the turning point in human evolution with the first piece of cooked meat. When we jumped from trees and started walking the earth we also discovered fire. Using fire we started cooking meat and eating more nutrient-rich food. Our brains grew. Eating meat might be responsible for our current development. Increasing number of public personas like Shawn Baker MD swear by eating only meat products (carnivore diet). Carnivores claim it helps them curb symptoms of their autoimmune conditions. Also, it helps fight obesity in adults. People generally consume fewer calories and fast more often with such diets. Most meat-eaters eat meat products solely because they like the taste.
People report health issues when they don’t consume meat products over an extended period. Hair and teeth weaken, energy levels, and the immune system gets suppressed. It also goes the other way around. Meat might cause inflammation, cancer, and other health risks for specific groups.
There are different equalities — Social equality, Racial equality, Mathematical equality.… The one that draws the most controversy is the equality of sexes. You’ve already heard about it from your feminist friend.
One side claims that archaic social constructs have degraded the opportunities presented to women in today’s world. The advocates of equality point out that women suffer more social and economic barriers in everyday life. They raise awareness of potential career difficulties and sexism in the workplace. Legal measures in favor of equality (Ex; The Equality act of 2010) came to power over the last decade. Such regulation aims to level out the playing field. When it comes to business, men are still taking the lead in front of their women counterparts. Left-leaning people might point out the Gender Pay gap. It’s a term coined to reflect the reality of where women get paid less for equal work. Also, they’re trying to take into consideration the prospect of starting a family. Women find it harder to balance career and family than men. Most of them have to take a year off work if they get pregnant.
The argument against is not against per se equality. The advocates against modern equality claim there is more to the argument. Dr. Jordan Peterson points out that women and men intrinsically have different interests.
“Women are more interested in people where men are more interested in things.”
He claims equality of opportunity is an undeniable human right. But equality of outcome is unfair and a potential disaster for western civilization. He argues that if we let women and men freely choose their path, there would be more women physicians and more men engineers. Unfortunately for women, engineers have higher salaries.
This debate is plaguedwith nationalism, racism and all sorts of negative isms. I’ll do my best to exclude those opinions qfrom this topic.
There is a general consciousness of how immigration affects local culture and heritage. People that wish to see strict immigration laws are afraid it might affect their way of life. They don’t want to see their neighborhood changed to a point of no recognition. They’re also concerned about the economic aspect of migration. It’s generally accepted that immigrants might take less money for equal work. Thus, they might drive the price of labor down and affect the poorest citizens. They also argue that immigrants might consider claiming welfare benefits more often than natives. This goes for developed countries like the USA, the UK, Germany, Australia, etc.
Advocates for decreased immigration barriers claim our population is growing old. People tend to live longer lives. Life expectancy in most countries is above 70 years of age. Young people don’t reproduce at a sustainable rate. New families tend to produce one child if they have one at all. Developed economies are taking a big hit in sustaining the older population. Global leaders like Angela Merkel urged European countries to accept more immigrants. She stated that we need more workers willing to take blue-collar jobs. They also see the positive economic trend in diversifying the nation. The social part of the argument states that things we couldn’t choose, shouldn’t ultimately define us. Those include our race and birthplace. We should accept anyone seeking refuge from war or natural and economic disasters. Those are human beings fighting for their lives. And they have the right to seek help with the developed world.
In which direction does your moral pendulum swing? There is a lot of food for thought here. Both sides usually have something worthy to say. And I always advocate for listening to both parties. Often, they hold the same goals and share similar values. But they picture different roads to actualization.