Why Banning Books for Containing Gays or Witches is Illogical

Everyone can agree that murder is wrong yet books aren’t banned because they depict a killing. (If this were the case, would there be any books left?) So why should any film or book be banned for containing something with which one disagrees?

 

[Just a quick note: the vast majority of homophobes/transphobes etc I know are atheists so this isn’t a dig at religion. This is a dig at discrimination and the faulty arguments that come with it.]

 

Also the witch thing is a misunderstanding because witchcraft/paganism (not one in the same) has nothing to do with Satan or Satanism. Paganism worships nature and Satanism isn’t that way inclined. Witches believe everything has power, from themselves to animals, gems and plants, so they have no need to deal with the Devil. So for Christians to ban witchcraft because of its association with Satanism is illogical.

 

Banning a book because it contains something you disagree with is an odd concept. How come you disagreeing with it take precedence over other people who agree or feel neutral about it? Why is your opinion more important than everyone else’s? If you don’t want to read it, don’t read it. Restricting other people’s choices seems hardly necessary. 

Why ‘I Shouldn’t Study Religious Education because I’m not Religious’ is Illogical

This argument ignores (1) the point of studying and (2) doesn’t work when applied to other subjects.

 

Firstly, studying any subject is to learn new things, not things that you’re familiar with already. If you were already familiar with them then there’d be no point being in the classroom. Why should RE be any different? Thus not being religious is the reason to study RE.

 

Secondly, this reasoning doesn’t apply to any other subject so there’s no reason for it to apply to RE. Would you say, for example, that you shouldn’t study maths because you don’t want to be a statistician? Or decline science because you don’t want to be a physicist? No, of course not.

 

Different subjects provide useful skills and knowledge. Using different parts of the brain is healthy and improves its overall performance. The brain is like any other part of the body: it needs exercise to be healthy and being healthy provides a superior quality of life.

 

RE has social benefits. By allowing students to understand different religions and cultures, ignorance and thence fear is removed. Becoming a more tolerant, rounded individual improves life’s prospects. Further, all this enhances social cohesion and peaceful interactions, both at home and abroad. Conflicts wouldn’t happen so people wouldn’t die. Why would anyone turn their nose up at that?

 

So the reasoning behind ‘I shouldn’t study RE because I’m not religious’ is illogical and has no parallel, making it ineffective. Plus studying RE brings major benefits. Religious Education is valuable.

Why 'The Chase' is (Getting) Annoying

I enjoy a good quiz. 'The Chase' fits thst bill. But seeing something everyday exposes annoyances.

Contestents have decided the lower offer is an insult. (Even plus lower offers can be deemed insulting!) 

      The thing is, the lower offer makes things easier for the contestent, hence harder for the chaser, so the chaser doesn't want the lower offer to be accepted. This is why it's so low: to make it unappealing. 

      The better the contestent, the less the chaser wants them to take the lower offer, so the lower their lower offers are. So the lower the offer is, the less the chaser wants it to be accepted. This is why low lower offers are compliments.

Every afternoon, Bradley ends the show by inviting people onto the Chase if they're 'clever enough'. Quiz shows test people's knowledge. Being clever is being intelligent. They aren't the same. 

      A chef understands food whilst a waiter delivers food; intelligent understand information whilst knowledgeable people deliver information. Sure, people can do both, but if you want one, you don't advertise for the other. 

      Whilst intelligent people are quite often knowledgeable, they are different skills. For example, I know the square root of -1 is i. I couldn't tell you what this means or its implications. Stinging nettles are often found with dock leaves but they're not the same thing. You wouldn't invite a roofer to fit your floors.

When they ask a question about a Greek god, the contestent can answer with the equivalent Roman god yet still get the answer right. They're essentially the same pantheons so this isn't the problem. What is the problem? Answering a Greek god for a Roman god question is deemed incorrect. This should be the other way around, considering that most Roman gods are essentially copy and pasted from the Greek pantheon.

So often, people say they don't know the answer because it's 'before their time'. Do you know what else is before their time? Questions about the Romans. The Tudors. The Victorians. You know, the entirety of history. But no-one whips out the 'it's before their time' excuse then. Why whip it out for more modern history?

Quite often, the contestent selects an answer and Bradley shouts, "I never knew that!" But he says this before the correct answer has been revealed. Until the correct answer is revealed, you still don't know that! You can't know a fact until you've actually been told what the fact is.

Either fellow contestents or Bradley, mostly the latter, says, "You're a better player than that." 

      Now, the only way to see if someone is a good quizzer is if they do well at a quiz. So if they do badly in the cash builder, what evidence do you have that they are better? 

      Be better if they were more confident is exactly the same as saying they would be better if they were more knowledgeable. No-one tells the unknowledgeable

The teammates give the exact same advice in every show. 

      Don't me wrong, over all the years it's all be along the same lines, but recently it's become vertabim. Like contestents are reading a script. It's boring and pointless. 

      Plus what they say has no relation to reality. Telling their fellow contestents they got tough questions or are capable of taking the higher offer isn't helpful. It's pandering at best and outright lying (hence making the speaker seem downright dim) at worst.

The show's run for quite some time. It means these repeat offenders have had plenty of opportunity to be repeated and thus become more annoying. 

      Some could be fixed easily by the creators. Problems with the contestents are clearly harder to influence. The rest are down to Bradley's ad libs which the creators should reel him in on. 

      But I suppose what motovation do the creators have to fix the problems when the show's so popular thst people will love it regardless?

No, dogs don’t have periods

People incorrectly say dogs have periods because they bleed during their reproductive cycle.

A period is when the endometrium is shed because there was no conception. This happens as part of the menstrual cycle, something humans have.

Dogs have an oestrous (/estrus) cycle. Their body reabsorbs the endometrium if there’s been no conception. An absorbed endometrium can’t be shed and, if the endometrium isn’t shed, there isn’t a period.

 

The oestrous cycle has four stages: proestrus, oestrus, dioestrus and anestrus. (Oestrous being the adjective and oestrus being the noun.)

In proestrus, eggs mature and the endometrium develops. In oestrus, eggs are released, making it the only stage in which pregnancy is possible. For both these early stages, during which the dog is on heat, there can be bloody vaginal discharge.

Dioestrus last longer in non-pregnant dogs than pregnant dogs. The hormone profile for this stage is the same whether pregnant or not. This is why dogs can go through pseudo-pregnancies.

Anoestrus is the longest stage of the cycle, lasting several months. It is the rest stage: the body is neither prepping for pregnancy nor dealing with pregnancy (or the lack of pregnancy).

So, menstrual cycle bleeding gets rid of the egg whereas oestrous cycle bleeding doesn’t get rid of the egg. Menstrual cycle bleeding happens after pregnancy can happen whereas oestrous cycle bleeding happens before and during pregnancy can happen. The bleeding in both cycles is analogous in neither purpose nor timing. If they aren’t analogous, using the same name for both is faulty.