So, you are comparing good and evil to two political parties? A person should just which one is good and while is evil? I don't think it's that simple. How can you just choose 2 people from each sport and say we have to make some choice between them? What about Neymar or Harry Kane? I'd love to hear how you actually connect that to politics. How is choosing between two parties a circle?

What does this have to do about religion? I mean, sure, most religions preach that we should have committed relationships, but I don't think it's just a religious thing. I think the topic here is committed relationship in general. Even if you don't believe in a religion, most people still want to have relationships with people they can trust. It's hard to believe that you will be completely fine if your significant other leaves you for another person, even if you are a non-believer. I have heard that some people choose to be in "open relationships", but I don't think they are very common.

In a committed exclusive relationship, infidelity can be a very hard thing to deal with. So many marriages and relationships have been ruined because of it. I think that it really has to be looked at on a case to case basis. It's very hard to imagine a situation when infidelity can be excused, but I believe there are so cases where it can be forgiven over time. It is a big mistake to make, but if the partner comes forward, confesses to what he/she did and commits to never repeat it, there are cases when I think it could be better to forgive. When children are involved, it can complicate things even more. Sadly, even after forgiving a partner for cheating, I think the relationship can become weaker. It can be harder to trust.

As noted previously, there's really just not a better option that we know of yet. It's definitely not a perfect solution. In the US it usually ends up being something like a choice between a Coke or a Sprite. Neither is very good for you, but you don't get any other choice. One of the big problems with a system like this is trying to change people's beliefs. It's really hard to introduce new ideas in these parties that have been around for decades. If a new politician comes up with new ideas, he first has to choose a party that seems to be sort of close to what he believe. Then he has to go to the and try to get people to believe in what he has to say. If that's not hard enough, then he has to get all the people who are used to supporting that party to get on board.

Perhaps we're just not measuring the right things. If the issue is the environment, then I'm sure technology is playing a big role in this. Modern technology surrounds us almost every moment of our lives, from when we wake up to when we go to sleep. Maybe the old IQ tests are out of date. Sure, maybe somebody may have a hard time figuring out a difficult long division question on paper, but give that person a smartphone and I'm sure he/she will figure it out really quickly. If we can do all these things just as good and sometimes better with a smartphone, then does it really matter if we can't do it without? Are we really going to come to a situation when we will do longer have access to the internet? I think it's so funny that schools typically spend a lot of time making sure that kids don't use the internet to help them, when they will be using the internet to help them all the time as soon as they graduate.

It may not be so much that the parents can't say no to their children. Every parent has their own philosophies and their own way of thinking. Unfortunately, I know that a lot of parents buy their children iPads or phones to keep them busy. I have seen many parents get small children (like 3 y.o.) iPads and turn on a video for them. It's no coincidence that some of the most viewed videos on YouTube are for children. This isn't the only reason that parents may give their children phones though. If a phone isn't a big expense for a parent, then it may just seem normal to a parent to give their child a phone. Perhaps they even consider it a safety issue. If the child has a phone it will be easier for them to quickly contact one another.

It's definitely possible to become a specialist with going to an educational institution. There are so many resources available these days! It's getting easier and easier. The internet has change the world and it continues to do so. There are many completely free courses available from some of the best universities professors in the world. There are wonderful forums like this one where you can ask people questions and get answers from people who know what their talking about. Of course, you have to keep in mind that the world may require some kind of official certification depending on what you're interested in. If you want to become a doctor, you're probably have to go to medical school if you ever want to practice it, but you could be a very knowledgeable specialist without it.

There are a few things you need to keep in mind. Whether or not the news is telling the truth is one question. I think that more often than not the news is not lying about what it says, although that certainly depends on the country and it depends on the news outlet. Sometimes news outlets only tell one side of a story, which sort of skews the facts, so it seems like things are one way. Unfortunately, sometimes this is done on purpose to push somebody's ideals. Sometimes it's just a reflection of a person's bias, which is very difficult to avoid.

I almost completely steer clear of news in my life and I feel just fine. There are over 7 billion people on this earth and everybody has something happening everyday. There is no possible way you can get a realistic picture of what's happening on earth. You just get a fraction of a percent of what's happening in the world when you watch or read the news. It's an illusion that you can actually know what's happening. I figure if anything that's truly important to my life comes up, I will hear about it.

I find that climate cycles are something that are not talked about enough. I certainly don't think that what humans are doing has no effect on the environment, but we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle. Another thing that bugs me is that in popular media sometimes so much responsibility is put on the end consumer, average people. If all the people in the world stop letting their vehicles idle when they aren't driving and start using reusable bags at the grocery store, it will still be a drop in the ocean compared to the effects industry and agriculture have on the environment. Talk about climate change is often a political stunt or an ad campaign. The issue is so complex. If everybody changes their light bulbs to some more environmentally-friendly ones, that may be a good thing, but you also have to take into account that a new factory had to be create to produce all those light bulbs. I've heard similar things about electric cars. Sure, it's great that electric cars don't burn fuel, but whats potential damage do the production and disposal of those huge batteries do to the environment.

The drug is definitely a huge issue to tackle. I want to point out though that it is weird that the title of this article talks about legalizing drugs, while the actually article is talking about decriminalization. Legalization and decriminalization are not the same things. This article uses Portugal as an example. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. That doesn't mean that it's not illegal. "If someone is found in the possession of less than a 10-day supply of anything from marijuana to heroin, he or she is sent to a three-person Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, typically made up of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The commission recommends treatment or a minor fine; otherwise, the person is sent off without any penalty. A vast majority of the time, there is no penalty." (https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening)

I really don't see how these examples relate. As far as I know, Portugal never had a war with narco dealers, like they have in Mexico. Portugal had a big problem with drug use. I don't think the problem in Mexico is drug use so much as drug production and trafficking. Portugal's law wouldn't fix that problem. Am I missing something?