First of all, I would like to do an introduction about what a conspiracy theory is and which three I have chosen. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. There are a lot of different theories and many of them are popular, but in my case I decided to choose three that I liked the most. The first one I’ll explain is about the moon landing, whether it is true or not the fact that men has arrived to the moon. Then I’ll talk about the mysterious disappearance of the flight 379, and finally I will explain a part of the theories about the 9/11 attack. So, let’s start with the first one. As we know, Apollo 11 was the name of the spaceflight that landed the first two humans on the Moon. These two humans, Neil Armstrong and pilot Buzz Aldrin, both American, landed the lunar module Eagle on July 20, 1969. It clearly was a big step to humanity but, not many years later, 10 to be more exact, Bill Kaysing wrote and published a book (We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle) that was the first step to one of the biggest conspiracy theory ever. To sum up, it is said that NASA needed to do something like this because of the Cold War and Vietnam War. Landing to the Moon would make America win the technological and special race that was holding with the Soviet Union, but it was too dangerous. This would also distract public attention from the unpopular Vietnam War. That’s why it is thought that could be faked. I found an enormous list of arguments and rebuttals. Most of them are based on oddities that can be found in the photos and videos of the spaceship. For example, conspiracists say that in the photos we can’t see the stars, that it was impossible for the flat to flutter because there is no wind in the moon or that the lights and the shadows are inconsistent. However, specialists have been explaining the reasons of all of this: they explain that the stars were outshone by the sunlight, in the original videos we can see that the flag it is not fluttering at all and there are a lot of photos that had been edited by the public, that’s why the shadows and the lights are odd. Now the second one, the mysterious disappearance of the flight 470. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 while flying from Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia, to its destination, Beijing Capital International Airport in China. The aircraft has not been recovered, and the cause for the disappearance remains unknown. This uncertainty about what happened made people develop their own theories. The most realistic ones say that it could have been a kidnapping or a terrorist act, especially because there were two Iranians with robbed passports. However, investigations concluded that it was just a case of irregular immigration. It is possible that it was a carelessness, mostly because the first official has precedents being irresponsible during a flight. There is also the possibility of a suicide or a technical error. However, we have some unrealistic ones too. Some people said it could be hidden and prepared to attack Israel, some other said that it could have been related with an economical reason. Apparently, in that flight were travelling four Chinese associated with a patent that America launched some days after the accident. After the death of this four men, an American company would have the total control of the patent. And well, there are even people that think aliens could have been involved. Anyway, even if we don’t really know what happened or where the airplane and the passengers are, it seems like it has been found some parts of the plane at the Indian Ocean so I hope someday they will find out what really happened. And finally, probably the most talked attack that happened in the modern history: the September 11 terrorist attacks against United States. The theories can be divided into three categories: Let it happen on purpose, claiming that the government knew about this attacks and did what they could to let it happen; Make it happen on purpose, suggesting that the government planned the attack in collaboration, or framing, Al-Qaeda; or others. On one hand, some people think that the United States government knew about all of this and let it happen, decreasing the defences and allowing the entrance of the hijackers even if some of them shouldn’t have gotten in the United States because there was something wrong with their passports. On the other hand, some other people think that it was all planned by the government, that the Twin towers were actually collapsed by a controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was attacked by a missile, which mean that the attack was faked. But why all of this? It seems like everything was planned to give the United States a reason enough to declare the war and attack Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. And that wouldn’t sound so crazy considering that the explosion of the Main during 1898 was a good reason to attack Spain and win Cuba. But, in the end, we will never know if these theories are true or not. However, I think is fascinating how we are capable of thinking all of these theories and how they become so famous because the rest of the people believe in them. Nota: 7.75/10
Pro · Animals have a right not to be harmed Not only they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. · Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals · Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. · Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments. We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. · Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society. Con · Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good. · People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy 23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone. While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered. New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case. · Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise. After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials. Novel compounds are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans. Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy. · Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU, have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results. The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment. There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals. Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results. · Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated. The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban. Postura que tuve que defender: Contra. Nota: 14/20
Introduction First of all, I would like to introduce what “gay or LGBT community” means. LGBT is an initialism that stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. This community fight to achieve an equality of rights for all the people that identifies themselves with one or another sexuality. And one of those rights is to be able to get married. Reasons and opinion So… should they be able to get married? From my point of view, yes, they should. Nowadays, everything related with this community it seems to be a very hot issue and there are a lot of varied opinions. However, it looks like the arguments are always the same. The people who consider that they should not marry usually say that because they thinks that men who loves men or women who loves women are not normal, normally turning to the Bible and the religion. I hold the view that marriage is not question of gender but of love and that everyone should be able to marry however they like, without being ruled out. Gay people are humans too and they deserve to be treated like that. I feel very disappointed knowing that there are countries which proclaim to be the most advanced but they don’t accept and punish this kind of love. Yes, because by not letting these people to marry they are punishing them. The gay marriage it has nothing to do with religion but with the State, because if they could marry they would have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, something that they don’t have with the civil union. For example, with medical attention and adoption. Conclusion In conclusion, if we give them the opportunity to marry, they would live more easily and safe. If people see them as someone else, they will end up being more accepted and youth suicide related with this issue will probably diminish. So yes, I believe all the people should be able to marry with the person who loves no matter what, because love has nothing to do with religion, politics or ideologies, love is more important and we should not stop it. Nota: 6.5/10
¿POR QUÉ SHIPPEO TANTO A GENTE QUE NO PUEDE SER PAREJA? I MEAN, ME ESTOY VIENDO CUERPO DE ÉLITE Y ELENA Y XIMO TIENEN MUCHÍSIMA QUÍMICA. ¿POR QUÉ TIENE QUE ESTAR CASADA? ¿POR QUÉEEEEEEEEE?
Pues así, queridos míos (?) el otro día vi un vídeo de canciones de Disney y me salieron muchas de estas pelis y dije: cojines, tengo muchas ganas de verlas desde hace tiempo, why not now? y me las he visto y... shipping time! Mal x Evie "And Evie, you do not have to play dumb to get a guy. You are so smart" Contenido oculto Jay x Carlos "You said yourself a team is made up of a bunch of parts. Well, he's kind of like my brain." Contenido oculto Mal x Ben "Ben, of course I love you. Ben, I have always loved you." Contenido oculto Evie x Doug "You're right, I don't need a prince. Because I have you." Contenido oculto Jay x Lonnie "The team shall be comprised of a captain and eight men. So, uh, give it up for your new team captain." Contenido oculto Carlos x Jane "Jane, would you be my date for Cotillion? And... if you don't absolutely hate me by the end of it, would you consider, maybe, being more than friends? Maybe?" Contenido oculto Harry x Uma "All it takes is one wrong look and I'll" "Harry, we get it, chill" Contenido oculto Harry x everyone tbh bc he is such a flirt i can't relate Contenido oculto Mal, Evie, Carlos & Jay [but more in a family way bc such cuties] "Because we are rotten..." "...to the core." Contenido oculto Contenido oculto Ahora mismo, ya no se me ocurren más, pero si eso, editaré (?
Pásate por este tema y pídemela <3
10/10
Contenido oculto Vida Esta palabra da para ponerse muy filosófico. Pero llevo ya como 4 o 5 seguidas y, claro, se me fue la vena filosófica (?) Creo que la vida es algo muy importante y que nunca debemos dejar escapar la oportunidad de vivir. Sé que hay mucha gente que piensa que es algo intrascendente, que la vida de una persona es nada comparada con otras cosas pero... yo quiero ser un poco más optimista. Quiero pensar que todas las vidas son importantes y, sí, es muy dura, es cierto, siempre encontramos obstáculos, pero aun así merece la pena vivir, porque también tiene cosas buenas, también hay personas por las que merece la pena vivir. Así que no abandones la vida, por favor <3
Contenido oculto Luz ¡Yo soy un ser de oscuridad! Sólo mirad mi blog, está todo negro... pero brilla, ¿no? Es importante tener algo de luz en tu vida. Todo el mundo tiene su luz especial, esa luz que debe proteger y cuidar a toda costa. Sí, creo que cada persona tiene un brillo que la hace especial y que hay que protegerlo a toda cosa, hay que permanecer siempre brillando, aunque estemos pasando por un momento oscuro. Porque, al final, el día siempre vuelve, ¿verdad?
Contenido oculto Huevo ¿Huevo? Huevo... ¡HUEVO KINDER! Me gustan los huevos kinder pero me gustan aún más los kinder esos que sacan especialmente en verano que es como la crema blanca y dos bolitas super ricas. Ains, nunca me canso de comer esa shit.
Contenido oculto Comida Ah, comida. ¿A quién no le gusta la comida tbh? Pues pues a mí me gusta, pero tampoco una cosa muy loca. En general como bastante poco, excepto cuando tengo la regla que entonces devoro todo (?) Así que, bueno, disfruto la comida pero en su justa medida(?)
Contenido oculto Escritorio Aaaaah, el escritorio <3 El escritorio es muy importante para mí, me paso el 90% de mi tiempo ahí sentada, con el ordenador, haciendo deberes o estudiando, incluso comiendo. De hecho, yo tenía uno así pequeñito y les tuve que pedir a mis padres que me lo cambiasen yyyyy aprovechando que mi padre es albañil, pues aquí estamos. Me ha hecho un escritorio laaaaargo y super bonito y útil y se lo agradezco mucho porque ahora estoy muuuucho más cómoda en él para hacer todas las cosas que hago aquí~
SPOILERS AHEAD No tienen ningún orden específico, es según me vaya acordando.Kokichi x Shuichi Contenido oculto Shuichi x Kaede Contenido oculto Kaito x Maki Contenido oculto Kaede x todas las chicas tbh Contenido oculto Miu x Keebo Contenido oculto Kokichi x Miu Contenido oculto Kokichi x Keebo Contenido oculto Kokichi x Himiko Contenido oculto Tenko x Himiko Contenido oculto Himiko x Angie Contenido oculto Rantaro x Kaede Contenido oculto Rantaro x Tsumugi Contenido oculto Rantaro x Shuichi Contenido oculto Rantaro x Kokichi Contenido oculto Katio x Shuichi Contenido oculto Monotaro x Monophanie Also Rnataro x me, y Kokichi x me, because honestly, daddies
Contenido oculto Cenizas Uf, a mi las cenizas me hacen pensar en cigarros. Odio el tabaco, god save me. Mis dos padres fuman y no me molestaría tanto si no fuese porque siempre acabo envuelta en humo por su culpa y no solo me molesta al respirar, sino que hace que me huela el pelo. Mira, yo creo que debe ser un problema o algo pero siempre que estoy cerca o así de mis padres cuando fuman (u otra persona), acabo obsesionada con que me huele el pelo, y me molesta. idek. Pero sí, las cenizas me hacen pensar en tabaco y es algo que odio bastante.
Contenido oculto Flores No tengo mucho que decir en esta entrada. Las flores me son un poco indiferentes, por así decirlo. Son bonitas y me gusta verlas, pero tampoco me vuelvo loca por ellas. Huelen bien pero vaya, tengo yo el olfato un poco mal so (?) Así que eso, siento las entradas cortas(?)
Contenido oculto Mascota Aww, una mascota es muy importante para mí. En mi caso, me decanto por tener un gato de mascota, ya lo sabéis. Soy hija única pues y mis padres no están siempre en casa, como cabe esperar, así que tener una mascota, un gato, por ahí molestando o durmiendo o whatever, estando ahí simplemente, me ayuda mucho. Es cierto que me gusta el silencio, estar en mi cuarto sin que me moleste y eso, pero no me gusta saber que estoy sola en toda la casa. Y pues, está ese animalito por ahí, quizás en el salón durmiendo, quizás en mi cuarto durmiendo, quizás se sube y hace ruido y me asusta, pero está ahí, sé que no estoy sola. Y sienta bien saber que no estás solo, aun cuando si sucede algo, ese ser no va a hacer mucho. Y estoy segura que cuando me mude, también tendré alguna mascota conmigo, porque es una compañía que siempre apreciaré.
![[IMG]](https://i.imgur.com/HmHDSqg.png)