We all understand that procrastination is, well, a bitch. It is one of the things that everyone ends up doing. You know, we've all been there - you open up the browser to research for your assignment and before you know it, you've commented on three statuses, stalked seven of your friends' friends and moved up six ranks in Tetris on Facebook, bought some t-shirts online and taught yourself Spanish via YouTube videos (with the occasional video in between of some person failing and hurting themselves). The things we do just to not have to do that god-awful assignment or -insert equally painful thing here-. Heck, I'm doing it right now - I've got things in front of me to colour in and yet I'm typing this.
In my defense, this is a weekly thing so I want to get it done - although I'm rather overly excited about colouring in! (Don't judge me).
A little procrastination is normal. We all need breaks and distractions to make a study/work session more tolerable. But why would you keep putting something off till like one or two days before it is due? You get stressed, you don't sleep, you panic and you end up doing things in a rush. This isn't a cooking competition - your assignment doesn't need to be hot and sizzling when you hand it in. Nor is this the sprints - you don't get more points for finishing your assignment in the shortest amount of time. You're given the question or topic in advance for a reason and that is to give you sufficient time to complete it.
If you think about it, the logical option would be to complete your assignment and then relax afterwards, knowing that you're all done. If that's too difficult then your other option would be to do a set amount of work and that way when you do end up procrastinating, you won't feel as bad. Furthermore, finishing early would also give you the time to review what you have done and see if you can make it any better. I personally cannot really enjoy anything knowing that there is an assignment looming over my head or when I haven't done as much as I would have liked. I don't think you would like to miss out on your sleep and pull all-nighters so why not just spread the work-load out? Time management is the key and it's probably a good time to start effectively using it.
Yeah, I'm done with my procrastinating. Time to colour in some boxes!
Monday, 19 September 2011
Monday, 12 September 2011
...What The Hell Rich Parents Are Thinking.
So, this morning on the radio I heard about some preschool. Not just any preschool. A very prestigious preschool. Want to send your children to it when you start a family? Well, you probably can't. If I remember correctly, it's acceptance rate is like 2.6% (compared to that of Harvard, which is 6.2%). Plus, you also need the money - it's annual fee is like $2000 higher than the school fees of Harvard too. That's around US$32,000 per year. Confused? So am I.
Sadly, I forgot the name of this place and therefore failed to find sufficient information to back up all the data that I had provided above. However, I did manage to do some snooping and I found a school called Ethical Culture Fieldston School Lower School
What is the difference really between a normal kindergarten and this one? Probably not much. So what if those kids get to play with golden play-doh? It's still just play-doh - it can't make your child fly or what not. So what if those kids get to have amazing preschool teachers who can recite A-Z backwards in under 3 seconds? Children at that age can't even learn that much, (nor adults, I'm pretty sure my example is an impossible feat... oops) - well there's definitely a limit as to what they will be able to take in. So what if those kids get to go on miraculous field trips that involve human sized Barbie dolls and life-sized HotWheels cars? Most kids won't even remember that experience. Want to keep your child confined to a snobby rich atmosphere where their only friends each have a herd of ponies and their own little mansion? That's the way!
I can understand if the rich sent their children to prestigious primaries, middle/intermediate, high schools and universities. That's acceptable - children need a good academic basis/beginning to develop, they need a good environment to learn and they need opportunities and advice for growth. But seriously, paying that much for your child to go to pre-school is just illogical.
Plus, since you barely even know what your child is good at and how academically capable they are, you might be even setting them up for failure - think how angry you will be if your child, whom you spent over $100,000 on preschool education, turns out to be an average or difficult student. You're technically pressuring them. Money does not assure success. That money could probably be used much more efficiently. I would choose to give a handful of deprived children an opportunity of proper education over one single preschooler having quality naps in a bed made from the best silk in the world (after having taken a trip to the Grand Canyon of course).
Monday, 29 August 2011
...Why Vegetarians Eat Vegetarian Meat Even When They Don't Like Killing Animals For Food.
We all have our own tastes and preferences. Some of us like sweet, some of us like sour. Some of us like light, some of us like salty. Some of us like it fried, some of us like it grilled. There are so many different choices out there. And as expected, some of us like meat while some others don't. People usually choose to be vegetarians because they either dislike the taste of meat, the idea that it had come from an once-living animal, or because of cultural or religious purposes (or even for just plain health reasons). And because vegetables cannot provide all the daily nutrients human require, it's just perfectly logical to use vegetarian ingredients, such as soy products, to create food that is high in protein.
But why do some of these products end up being vegetarian meat? There are two things that seem rather odd:
1. If you're vegetarian by choice, and dislike the taste of real meat, why would you eat something that is made to taste like it then? It's like saying "I'll just cut down on my sugar intake and drink some aloe vera juice with fructose instead." - therefore, these meats should only be targeted at the remaining vegetarians.
But 2. If you're a vegetarian by choice, and dislike the idea of killing animals for meat, why would you eat something that imitates it? I quote from David, "IT'S OK. I'M ONLY PRETENDING TO KILL THIS COW". If you can make tofu and what not into "sausages" or "chicken", surely you can make it taste like something else other than meat. Why would you want to envision eating meat when you're against it in the first place?
I guess people with the other two reasons are exempt from this question - they eat things that mimic meat to satisfy their craving of real meat since they can't have any due to beliefs or healthy determination. But why the two groups mentioned above eat these vegetarian meats is beyond me. Especially the second group.
It's just the concept that is beyond me. It's a rather irrelevant topic, considering how little people it actually affects but you know me - don't really care about numbers. I have nothing against vegetarians. It's just odd to me that's all.
But why do some of these products end up being vegetarian meat? There are two things that seem rather odd:
1. If you're vegetarian by choice, and dislike the taste of real meat, why would you eat something that is made to taste like it then? It's like saying "I'll just cut down on my sugar intake and drink some aloe vera juice with fructose instead." - therefore, these meats should only be targeted at the remaining vegetarians.
But 2. If you're a vegetarian by choice, and dislike the idea of killing animals for meat, why would you eat something that imitates it? I quote from David, "IT'S OK. I'M ONLY PRETENDING TO KILL THIS COW". If you can make tofu and what not into "sausages" or "chicken", surely you can make it taste like something else other than meat. Why would you want to envision eating meat when you're against it in the first place?
I guess people with the other two reasons are exempt from this question - they eat things that mimic meat to satisfy their craving of real meat since they can't have any due to beliefs or healthy determination. But why the two groups mentioned above eat these vegetarian meats is beyond me. Especially the second group.
It's just the concept that is beyond me. It's a rather irrelevant topic, considering how little people it actually affects but you know me - don't really care about numbers. I have nothing against vegetarians. It's just odd to me that's all.
Monday, 22 August 2011
...Girls. And Their Retarded, Odd, and Rather Illogical Behaviour.
My apologies in advance for those girls who do not do any of the following things - I'm afraid you're a rare breed.
Women. Girls. Ladies. The female version of a man. Whatever you want to call them. We are equal and we are technically the same - we all breathe, talk, eat, sleep... -insert 2342934823 more verbs here-. But there are just some things that some of you girls do that I don't understand (and as for I, I mean most guys). Let's just point out some simple ones:
1. Why girls seem to always go to the toilet as a pack, mainly in public areas - if you think about it, this is rather disturbing isn't it? You stand up and go to the toilet and suddenly another three girls stand up and decide to go with you. Peeing isn't a group activity. You do not need assistance to go to the toilet (well, most people don't anyway). Why do you all have to go together? Is it because when someone says "I need to go to the bathroom" your bladder instantly fills up and you decide it's time to go too? Do you get discounts when you go as a group? Is the nearest toilet 60kms away and you need someone to cling onto in case you get lost? I would understand if it was a foreign place, or at a place with bad lighting/dangers etc. But in broad daylight, with a decent of people around you, there's no need for this kind of behaviour. You don't hear us guys volunteering to go to the bathroom with one another. That's just weird.
2. Why girls complain that the toilet seat isn't down after someone uses it - you wash your hands after going to the bathroom right? So what's the difference if you just put down the lid yourself and then do your routinely wash afterwards? The toilet seat isn't made of fire - or you'd be burnt already. Touching the toilet seat doesn't give you weird diseases that turn you into a size 32 (God forbid!) or chip your nail. It's just the toilet seat. Calm down girls. And what about us guys? Do we have special immunities that protect us? No. You don't see us complaining. That's just weird.
3. Why girls constantly say "nothing's wrong" or "I'm okay" when they're obviously upset because their mascara is running down their face, there are three strands of hair out of place and (I just realised face and place rhymed so... I bring you...) they've been screaming and whining like a total nut case - is it that difficult to say "no, it's not okay" or "yes, something's wrong"? Oh good god, I just said it to myself to make sure humans can do it (and surprise, we can!) You expect honesty from us. And yet you're lying straight to our faces. How do you think this make us feel? You're undermining your own argument. That's just weird.
4. Why girls spend 213918343 years to take a shower, decide what to wear, put on their make up, realise that the eye liner doesn't go with the skirt, spend more time deciding what to wear, spray on perfume, realise that there are no shoes that match the current outfit, change again and then step outside the front door, decide it's too cold, change again and finally leave the god damn house - I think that long winded sentence is rather self explanatory. It's better to wear something that doesn't perfectly match than arriving somewhere late, or worse, wasting so many hours of your life worrying about your appearance. Last time I checked there were no fashion police stations around your house, or paparazzi chasing you. Unless you think there are. That's just weird.
(And, what's with you girls having 24234234 pairs of shoes? You're not a millipede, centipede, or even a spider. We don't continuously stare at your shoes when we hang out either.)
5. Why girls constantly ask whether they're fat when trying on clothes - think about the situation you put us in. If we say "yes, you look like a total pig", you're gonna get all angry and then do 3. (see above). Therefore the only option is to say "no, absolutely not!" - whether it's the truth or just a plain lie. You know it's a default answer. And you know you don't look fat anyway. So stop asking redundant questions you know the answer to. That's just weird.
And there you have it. Five little things that some girls do that confuse many. Y U NO MAKE SENSE?
Women. Girls. Ladies. The female version of a man. Whatever you want to call them. We are equal and we are technically the same - we all breathe, talk, eat, sleep... -insert 2342934823 more verbs here-. But there are just some things that some of you girls do that I don't understand (and as for I, I mean most guys). Let's just point out some simple ones:
1. Why girls seem to always go to the toilet as a pack, mainly in public areas - if you think about it, this is rather disturbing isn't it? You stand up and go to the toilet and suddenly another three girls stand up and decide to go with you. Peeing isn't a group activity. You do not need assistance to go to the toilet (well, most people don't anyway). Why do you all have to go together? Is it because when someone says "I need to go to the bathroom" your bladder instantly fills up and you decide it's time to go too? Do you get discounts when you go as a group? Is the nearest toilet 60kms away and you need someone to cling onto in case you get lost? I would understand if it was a foreign place, or at a place with bad lighting/dangers etc. But in broad daylight, with a decent of people around you, there's no need for this kind of behaviour. You don't hear us guys volunteering to go to the bathroom with one another. That's just weird.
2. Why girls complain that the toilet seat isn't down after someone uses it - you wash your hands after going to the bathroom right? So what's the difference if you just put down the lid yourself and then do your routinely wash afterwards? The toilet seat isn't made of fire - or you'd be burnt already. Touching the toilet seat doesn't give you weird diseases that turn you into a size 32 (God forbid!) or chip your nail. It's just the toilet seat. Calm down girls. And what about us guys? Do we have special immunities that protect us? No. You don't see us complaining. That's just weird.
3. Why girls constantly say "nothing's wrong" or "I'm okay" when they're obviously upset because their mascara is running down their face, there are three strands of hair out of place and (I just realised face and place rhymed so... I bring you...) they've been screaming and whining like a total nut case - is it that difficult to say "no, it's not okay" or "yes, something's wrong"? Oh good god, I just said it to myself to make sure humans can do it (and surprise, we can!) You expect honesty from us. And yet you're lying straight to our faces. How do you think this make us feel? You're undermining your own argument. That's just weird.
4. Why girls spend 213918343 years to take a shower, decide what to wear, put on their make up, realise that the eye liner doesn't go with the skirt, spend more time deciding what to wear, spray on perfume, realise that there are no shoes that match the current outfit, change again and then step outside the front door, decide it's too cold, change again and finally leave the god damn house - I think that long winded sentence is rather self explanatory. It's better to wear something that doesn't perfectly match than arriving somewhere late, or worse, wasting so many hours of your life worrying about your appearance. Last time I checked there were no fashion police stations around your house, or paparazzi chasing you. Unless you think there are. That's just weird.
(And, what's with you girls having 24234234 pairs of shoes? You're not a millipede, centipede, or even a spider. We don't continuously stare at your shoes when we hang out either.)
5. Why girls constantly ask whether they're fat when trying on clothes - think about the situation you put us in. If we say "yes, you look like a total pig", you're gonna get all angry and then do 3. (see above). Therefore the only option is to say "no, absolutely not!" - whether it's the truth or just a plain lie. You know it's a default answer. And you know you don't look fat anyway. So stop asking redundant questions you know the answer to. That's just weird.
And there you have it. Five little things that some girls do that confuse many. Y U NO MAKE SENSE?
Monday, 15 August 2011
...Why Cords/String/-Insert Similar Object Here- Seem To Always Tangle Even When You've Taken So Many Precautions For Them Not To
Okay so I'm going to admit that I'm gonna cheat today's post. I just got home. I'm tired and since I have this little case of OCD, I refuse to postpone my post till tomorrow (it will ruin my Monday streak!). Therefore, I am going to have a short, scientific post today.
We all have cords or cord-like objects. Have you ever wondered why they always seem to bunch together? Like I would leave my cables and stuff on the carpet and when I come back they're like all tangled up. Even though I (obviously) did not purposely do it myself. It's either a knot has formed or two or more cords have just decided to entwine and make your life miserable.
So, in my speedy preparation for this scientific topic, I've found some evidence that may help solve this mystery that we're all dying to figure out (well, at least I am).
Scientific experiments have shown that cords between a specific length are more prone/guaranteed to be tangled after being tumbled or moved. According to livescience.com, "digital photos and video of the tumbling strings revealed: Strings shorter than 1.5 feet (.46 meters) didn't form knots; the likelihood of knotting sharply increased as string length went from 1.5 feet to 5 feet (.46 meters to 1.5 meters); and beyond this length, knotting probability leveled off."
Because cords are round-shaped (unless you're special with cuboid-like cords - no idea how that works), there's also something about them having less friction control. So, just like the idea that if you shake something in a box, the contents will move, parts of the cords move and then end up tangling around each other. And then you take your earphones out of your bag or pocket to find that they are all tangled up and you spend a good old 30 seconds to 15 minutes (depending on your cord-untangling speed) trying to make it straight and usable again.
However what I have found does not explain how the cords in my room decide to make my life difficult. I don't have pets. I may have dragged one by accident when pulling my phone from the charger but that's it. AJDshafksdfhaskd. It's okay. I'll let you know when I've found where the little cruel cord dwarfs have been hiding in my house.
We all have cords or cord-like objects. Have you ever wondered why they always seem to bunch together? Like I would leave my cables and stuff on the carpet and when I come back they're like all tangled up. Even though I (obviously) did not purposely do it myself. It's either a knot has formed or two or more cords have just decided to entwine and make your life miserable.
So, in my speedy preparation for this scientific topic, I've found some evidence that may help solve this mystery that we're all dying to figure out (well, at least I am).
Scientific experiments have shown that cords between a specific length are more prone/guaranteed to be tangled after being tumbled or moved. According to livescience.com, "digital photos and video of the tumbling strings revealed: Strings shorter than 1.5 feet (.46 meters) didn't form knots; the likelihood of knotting sharply increased as string length went from 1.5 feet to 5 feet (.46 meters to 1.5 meters); and beyond this length, knotting probability leveled off."
Because cords are round-shaped (unless you're special with cuboid-like cords - no idea how that works), there's also something about them having less friction control. So, just like the idea that if you shake something in a box, the contents will move, parts of the cords move and then end up tangling around each other. And then you take your earphones out of your bag or pocket to find that they are all tangled up and you spend a good old 30 seconds to 15 minutes (depending on your cord-untangling speed) trying to make it straight and usable again.
However what I have found does not explain how the cords in my room decide to make my life difficult. I don't have pets. I may have dragged one by accident when pulling my phone from the charger but that's it. AJDshafksdfhaskd. It's okay. I'll let you know when I've found where the little cruel cord dwarfs have been hiding in my house.
Monday, 8 August 2011
...Why Mainstream Music Has Been Taken Over By 348594395 Songs About Finding Girls in Clubs or Telling You to Dance on the Floor (As If There's Nothing Else to Do).
Many "cool" people frown upon mainstream music - you know, 'cos what they're listening to is so much better. You hear those people complain "Oh, drats, -insert some band name here- has sold out and gone mainstream. That sucks". I never really understood why mainstream was so bad. It consisted of a relatively wide range of genres, although mostly it's just pop or rock. It never really bothered me that much - I listen to what I like, a bit of this and a bit of that. But it's starting to bother me, for a variety of reasons.
Why has almost everything turned electropopy? What happened to good old normal, instrumental music where hardly anyone relied on auto tune or excessive track editing? Now almost everything you hear on the radio is just some sort of dance number with synthetic beats and music. And with these comes the shocking and uninspiring lyrics. They're all about clubs, finding someone who's DTF and drinking until you see stars, during the day. I swear originality has decreased by like 500% (Where Them Girls At?, Who's That Chick?, Who's That Girl? for example). I'm pretty sure there's other things to sing about.
Furthermore, why has everyone turned so electropopy? Remember the good old days where Enrique Iglesias sung "Hero" and touched everyone's hearts with it's great lyrics? Now he's going around telling girls that "tonight, I'm f*cking you". Remember when Christina Aguilera sung ballads with her powerful voice? "Not Myself Tonight" was just an appalling song about a good girl being bad for one night. Yeah yeah, they might be just trying to go with the flow but seriously, stay true to who you are and what type of music you sing. That way your nice RnB track or power ballad stands out among the crowd of idiotic dance music. Look how well Adele is doing. She doesn't need the bass to drop or sample a song from 1984 - she just uses her voice and sings.
What Adele also does not need is to wear something which we can barely call clothes and dance promiscuously in her music videos either (although I'm not sure I would want to see that). A lot of mainstream music videos now are full of hot girls in skimpy outfits, dancing around poles or in some sort of situation which allows them to be sprayed by water and what not. Okay, it is enticing for a while but not really worth all the respect you lose.
And what has happened to all the good, meaningful music? Where's all the "You and Me's" or "Here Without You's"? I'm guessing they have been muffled and drowned out in the craze of dance music. There's only a few good alternative rock song that becomes popular every now and then. What we are mostly being exposed to now are songs with meaningless lyrics, sung by people who can barely sing without some sort of electronic alteration - and the only reason they're popular is because people mindlessly enjoy it and let it get overplayed on the radio (seriously, what the hell is wrong with radio stations? I swear, if I hear the words "I heard your heart singing love, love, love", I'm going to stab the radio with a pen. That is blue. Made out of plastic. Half melted in the sun. And then chuck it out the window (an open window of course, I don't want to break glass))
I must admit some songs are rather catchy and there's definitely a few dance songs that stand out due to their amazing lyrics or due to their originality. But if I were to choose to listen to music from this decade or from the last decade, I'd definitely choose the music from last one. You can listen to whatever you want - just bear in mind that music is not what it used to be. I mean, if even Rebecca Black or T Pain can get famous, it's quite clear that the music industry has obviously gone mad.
Why has almost everything turned electropopy? What happened to good old normal, instrumental music where hardly anyone relied on auto tune or excessive track editing? Now almost everything you hear on the radio is just some sort of dance number with synthetic beats and music. And with these comes the shocking and uninspiring lyrics. They're all about clubs, finding someone who's DTF and drinking until you see stars, during the day. I swear originality has decreased by like 500% (Where Them Girls At?, Who's That Chick?, Who's That Girl? for example). I'm pretty sure there's other things to sing about.
Furthermore, why has everyone turned so electropopy? Remember the good old days where Enrique Iglesias sung "Hero" and touched everyone's hearts with it's great lyrics? Now he's going around telling girls that "tonight, I'm f*cking you". Remember when Christina Aguilera sung ballads with her powerful voice? "Not Myself Tonight" was just an appalling song about a good girl being bad for one night. Yeah yeah, they might be just trying to go with the flow but seriously, stay true to who you are and what type of music you sing. That way your nice RnB track or power ballad stands out among the crowd of idiotic dance music. Look how well Adele is doing. She doesn't need the bass to drop or sample a song from 1984 - she just uses her voice and sings.
What Adele also does not need is to wear something which we can barely call clothes and dance promiscuously in her music videos either (although I'm not sure I would want to see that). A lot of mainstream music videos now are full of hot girls in skimpy outfits, dancing around poles or in some sort of situation which allows them to be sprayed by water and what not. Okay, it is enticing for a while but not really worth all the respect you lose.
And what has happened to all the good, meaningful music? Where's all the "You and Me's" or "Here Without You's"? I'm guessing they have been muffled and drowned out in the craze of dance music. There's only a few good alternative rock song that becomes popular every now and then. What we are mostly being exposed to now are songs with meaningless lyrics, sung by people who can barely sing without some sort of electronic alteration - and the only reason they're popular is because people mindlessly enjoy it and let it get overplayed on the radio (seriously, what the hell is wrong with radio stations? I swear, if I hear the words "I heard your heart singing love, love, love", I'm going to stab the radio with a pen. That is blue. Made out of plastic. Half melted in the sun. And then chuck it out the window (an open window of course, I don't want to break glass))
I must admit some songs are rather catchy and there's definitely a few dance songs that stand out due to their amazing lyrics or due to their originality. But if I were to choose to listen to music from this decade or from the last decade, I'd definitely choose the music from last one. You can listen to whatever you want - just bear in mind that music is not what it used to be. I mean, if even Rebecca Black or T Pain can get famous, it's quite clear that the music industry has obviously gone mad.
Monday, 1 August 2011
...Why People Have 328942394823 Children When They Earn Like $20 A Week... Not Including Tax.
With that extra nudge from Becca, I bring you... this:
There's also the factor of accidental pregnancies, whether it is through rape, through a condom breaking or just plain lack of education or birth control. But honestly, how convincing is it when you tell someone "Oh, my 17 children - they were all unplanned"? Surely, you would have figured out by now how babies are made - I mean, you've had enough to actually plot a graph. Why can't you see this pattern or learn from your "mistakes"? Was that extra night in bed worth risking having another child that you can't afford to take care of? Don't you already feel bad enough that you can't give your current children what they want?
Having a child is like having a pet. You feed them, you play with them, you wash them, you look after them and you watch them slowly grow up. They need your attention, your love, your embrace, your time and your effort. And because children need a more nutritious range of food and supplements, as well as clothes, toys and other necessities, they are much more costly to have than a dog or a cat (people do buy toys for their pets and some even dress them up but I don't think anyone sends them to day care or primary school). Money/income then becomes an essential factor when raising children and sadly not all parents have them.
So if you can barely afford (or not even!) the rent and the basic necessities for yourself with the amount of money you earn, what on earth makes you think you'll be able to take care of like three children? Or seven. Or maybe even 15. You can't. You're gonna struggle and things are gonna get ugly. Sadly, this not only occurs in LEDC countries but also in MEDC countries too.
Just take a moment to think of what you are essentially doing: you are bringing up three children, or eight, or even 22 (you get the picture) into the world that you live in - the one where you lack disposable income and live a very economically-difficult life. Unless your children are geniuses or get lucky, they are probably going to stay in this condition that you've condemned them to for most of their life. That is what a poverty cycle is. They can't get out of this trap because you either can't afford to feed them properly or you don't have enough money left to give them a proper education. It's rather cruel isn't it, to place innocent children in an overpowering living situation. Take your time - have one, or even two (if you can afford it), and just have more when your economic situation improves. It may shatter your life-long dream for a huge family but that sacrifice is definitely better than watching your children starve and suffer a childhood of not having anything.
However, as usual, there are exceptions or unexpected events that contribute to what has caused my confusion. Because many people in LEDCs earn their money through primary goods or manual work, they tend to have a lot of children for manual labour or a few extra hands around the farm. That is understandable and with the children's help, it is likely for them have their income high enough to provide for the whole family (but that requires some sort of steady base from the parents to begin with i.e. have a farm)
There's also the factor of accidental pregnancies, whether it is through rape, through a condom breaking or just plain lack of education or birth control. But honestly, how convincing is it when you tell someone "Oh, my 17 children - they were all unplanned"? Surely, you would have figured out by now how babies are made - I mean, you've had enough to actually plot a graph. Why can't you see this pattern or learn from your "mistakes"? Was that extra night in bed worth risking having another child that you can't afford to take care of? Don't you already feel bad enough that you can't give your current children what they want?
Whether it is due to your culture, your dreams or just plain pleasure, take the time to think about what you're actually doing to your kids before you... erm... yeah. Children indeed bring you joy and assistance, but half a dozen of children sitting in front of you with a piece of bread to share will definitely break your heart - that is if they've made it past their infant years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone has pointed out that people might have a lot of kids due to increased dole money or benefits from the government - that makes little sense to me. I doubt the increase is going to be enough to pay for all your children's needs, so overall there is still a net loss of money. If you are a parent who has children just for the sake of having more government money to spend on yourself and end up neglecting your kids, then you don't deserve to be a parent.
Someone has pointed out that people might have a lot of kids due to increased dole money or benefits from the government - that makes little sense to me. I doubt the increase is going to be enough to pay for all your children's needs, so overall there is still a net loss of money. If you are a parent who has children just for the sake of having more government money to spend on yourself and end up neglecting your kids, then you don't deserve to be a parent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)