The damn TV (it emos!)

My mum decided to scrap Cable. The art of subtle manipulation succeeds once again. On the other hand it may be ineffective in taking so long. For long I’ve been saying that cable just isn’t worth it. I never did like watching TV. I never did watch. I thought it pointless. To me, it is only worth it if the whole family (and as many people as possible) get to watch it for more than half the day at least (for as long as possible). The cost of that may be frightening — electricity, deproving grades, lowered productivity and the list goes on. The main focus here is on the damaging values TV spreads (particularly, but not limited to, Channel 8 TV series) Of course it isnt all bad, don’t be ridiculous and tell me that news/the Wheel of Fortune don’t have these effects. I am talking about the specific genre of drama that tries to portray reality. It often has a spice of romance to it.

My point of view is that TV introduces an adult world with adult value of what adults do to children leading them to have an urge for relationships (no, not sechs yet). Any form of attraction or even friendliness from the opposite gender is branded by the child as “crush”/romance. (After all, it is a fine line between the two.) Maybe the sex that the TV throws across does not leads directly to more promiscuity. People starting relationships earlier while not mature enough is the cause. Over the years, there has been an increase in tv viewership by children, this is rising with the number of relationships that start from a younger age and the increase in pre-marital sex. If people start having a relationship earlier, they have longer to wait till a marriable age. Perhaps there may not be a link between seeing and doing, but this isn’t about influence. It’s about introducing ideas that children are not ready for which they will associate what happens in the real world with what the tv shows.

Wait wait, I take the previous paragraph back: a later marrying age has led to more pre-marital sex. Considering people’s hormones are most active at 13+ and they used to get married then… oh well, social norms have changed, especially with the need to become educated and work. Well! We can’t do anything about a later marrying age, we can only remove the factor of tv! TV IS EVIL.

Should we bubble wrap our kids? No, but there is no need to expose them to toxins in the name of developing their maturity. It can happen naturally and gradually in the same way people discovered the real world without television. In fact, by blocking off tv, we’re not bubble wrapping our kids from reality, we’re bubble wrapping them from a form of reality that the TV prescribes — even if you say its not perverse in and of it self, kids just aren’t ready yet.

But apart from kids, the whole idea of Wrist Slashing has been promoted. It shows people the wrong ways of coping with depression all in the name of drama. No doubt, they may happen in the real world. But tv popularises it. It shows more people a way of dealing with a problem — wrist slashing happens to be one of them.

Then again, maybe promoting wrist slashing is a GOOD alternative to jumping off buildings or slashing downwards from the wrist to the elbow (which is more deadly). This assumes that the people who cut their wrists would otherwise be far more suicidal– which is unlikely.

In any case I think that wrist slashing is stupid and pointless and carried out by fumbducks. I have no sympathy really unless you stop. If someone came up to you and slashed your wrist, you have every drop of sympathy from me.
If you slash yourself, you’re a fumbduck.

“Augh, I’m in emotional pain! Let me add to it by causing physical pain!”
*slashittyslashslash*
“Owwwww….it hurts. owwww….. lemme convince myself that my heart feels better!”
“Oh *(#&, BLOOD! BLOOD! omgomgomg!” *presses tissue*
“my friends can’t see me like that — i need a watch to cover it up”
“aw crud, i slashed my left hand, that means i have to wear my watch on the WRONG hand”
/face palm.

Oh go ahead and justify why slashing your wrist is ok, but please get a life after that – -and more importantly, i hope you stop. Self-hurt without pleasure is a dumb way of solving one’s problems.

On another note, i think people aren’t seeking help for wrist slitting because it may very well end up as a police case. shrugs.

Instead, i propose watching cartoons as the uber alternative! How emo can cartoons get, how depressing can cartoons get. Will cartoons promote ideas about romance or harem? Will cartoons encourage polygamy or harem? Will cartoons tell viewers that kitchenkniving each other as an end?

Uhh…..
Even if they do, there’s too great a fantasy element and its distinct from real-life! It’s not by real people! Sure, people can tell that robots running around or being able to LOAD SILVER CARTRIDGE is fake. There will not be a mix of values >< And it serves as a form of escapism!

Don’t slit your wrist, get addicted to a cartoon series or anything else. Addiction is a good thing, it removes suicidal tendencies. 

 

Unemployment solution

I was reading about unemployment today and how it is impossible to go down to zilch. Unemployment is indeed a hard problem. The government cannot just allow the unemployed and their families to starve or resort to crime (or throw themselves onto the tracks…). Yet it isn’t a good thing if the government hands out taxpayer’s money for people to do nothing. Is there a way to find a Golden Mean?

My inspiration stems from two sources
1. My classmates and their talk about how we should send mainly failures to the army. It sounds damn elitist i know, but our Prime  Senior Mentor once suggested this, though it faield most unfortunately
2. The story about how this poor guy stole just to go to jail to get food

lloyd’s proposed solution is basically to —

Draft all unemployed people. Recruit them, immediately put them in the army. They may not necessarily be part of the military combatants but they can be stuff like clerks, cooks or even parachute folders. That would grant them a job and some income.

Basically, “if we can find money to ‘kill’ people, we can find find money to help people” — a quote from Tony Benn, a former British politician who is extreme left. Perhaps there are other roles in which the government can provide apart from the military.

I will not go into the possible consequences of such a move — but it is feasible in my opinion. If you can conscript and train all 18 year olds, you can do the same for the unemployed as well.

Maybe this policy may not even involve much money being paid out…Perhaps not being sent back to the army would be a good reason to get a job — ANY job, even a cleaner. Essentially, disincentivise people from being unemployed ^.^ I don’t believe there’s such a thing as being “unable to find a job” just “unable to find a job that would suit a person’s tastes/preferences”

I have a slight problem with the definition of unemployment — more often than not the main phrase left out of the definition is “looking for a job”. Why the distinction? Perhaps it is mainly for women who’d willingly stay at home — to not count them as unemployed and thus screw the statistics up. My point ofview on the evolution of gender roles means that men can as well. But regardless of gender or the willingness to look for a job, it does not change the fact that they *can* contribute to the labour force and they have the potential to do so.

There probably is only one problem with this idea i’m toying with — we can’t exactly pinpoint who is unemployed to force them to become militarymen. Then again, why would that matter — its not our fault if people “refuse our help”. Just wait till theyre desperate enough and they’ll seek this avenue of employment and income.

 

The Dieter and ice-cream

We have a dieter by the name of sam (the most common name i kn0w, any resemblance is purely purely coincidental) or should i say dietress, according to my rather reasonable generalisation from common observation — that is more common.

Sam’s favourite food is Ice Cream. But wait, ice cream is fattening because it contains simple sugars. The body is meant to break down proper food into sugar and not obtain sugar externally directly. Ice cream is fattening and Sam doesn’t want to get fat because she’s a dietress. (Yes, a dietress)

Sam could do the following:

a) not eat ice cream at all — that way Sam wouldn’t get fat. Success right? But this is imba (/unbalanced, like how its too much of a good thing) because the cost is sort of great — Sam really wants to eat the ice cream… This in my opinion isn’t worth it (then again, in my opinion, we shouldn’t restrict ourselves either. Come HEDONISM!)

b) substitute ice cream in place of proper food — if i have a calorie budget, it’s going to my favourite food. Screw rice and uh… nutrition? If I value ice cream more than health, perfectly worth it.

Ahh, horror horror, I didn’t expect to get this when i searched for “Hot babe sunbathing at beach”/”fat chick on beach” my friend sent this to me (considering she’s quite skinny hehe *winks*) I laugh. I’d rather look at an Evil Clown right now… okay, maybe not.

c) take low-fat/calories ice cream — This will work assuming that Sam does not eat more ice cream. This will not work because Sam will eat more ice cream. Let’s suppose that the ‘Limit’ on how much ice cream Sam eats in a day is because of a guilt factor (what some people call ‘sinful’). The impression that the ice cream has less calories will lower this guilt factor, causing her to eat more ice cream. In the same way that mandatory seat belt regulations would make people more reckless…. or how when i went for tuition some time back, i ended up not studying at all.
Oh well, too bad for Sam. If she ends up taking in more calories when the increase in serving is greater than the decrease in calories per serving (or should i say percentage increase/decrease), its her fault for not calculating properly.

d) puke it out — yes, bulimia, after eating your dinner and ice cream, induce vomiting. That way, you wouldn’t get fat (: Question: How the heck do you induce vomiting? Probably take pills (which may be poisonous) and to stick your fingers down your throat (which isn’t too effective) Ouch at the process of puking. Eww at the outcome of puking. I wouldn’t want to taste my dinner twice. Not worth the effort.

The Lloyd Solution that I don’t recall anyone coming up with, its the GOLDEN MEAN between anorexia and bulimia. Perfect balance. Don’t completely abstain and avoid the ouch and eww of seeing your dinner again.

E) Eat all you want, but do not swallow, spit it out. Brilliant isn’t it? Like this, you wouldn’t get fat and you get to enjoy the cold sweet ice cream. Great success.

Don’t swallow, just spit it out.
.

.

.

But anyway, on the counterintuitive  “seatbelt hypothesis”, I think it varies from person to person and his or her degree of consciousness. A more safety conscious person will not drive more recklessly just because the cost of an accident is lower. Likewise, a work conscious person is stil going to carry on with a normal workload even with tuition. Sam can very well eat the same amount of ice cream with low-calories and it’d work out (oh oh, Sam can go Work Out, but I’d never suggest something like that, slobbery and slothism for the win).

Plus, I’d also assert that Sam is already eating to his limit (for me, the limit to ice cream is the End of the Box) Having less calories in his ice cream or any other reason is not going to make her eat more. This assertion however is flawed because it is clear that she is *restraining* herself already, in otherwords eating below her limit (that, is after all what a diet is)

But my solution still wins, Low fat does not mean no fat (lol, low crimes does not mean no crime) No fat is better than low fat.  I re-emphasise my point:

Don’t swallow, just spit it out.

 

The Coolant Tank Technology

Screw giant oxygen tanks to sleep in. Breathing in pure oxygen has been proven to severely screw a person up and cause a great need for little boys. (Read a bit of biology on how the lungs function and know diffusion and you’ll realise why breathing in pure oxygen will screw you up)

What I want (in addition to my pot to bathe in) is

A COOLANT TANK — to sleep in/use laptop

It’s a very Ethan way of thinking but it will be nice and comfy and can be used to prolong my life!

Consider this as an extension of how we can preserve our body cells through low temperatures. Just not the subzero-preserve-body-for-thousand-years kind of temperature. Heat will speed up death of cells etc. COnsidering the brain’s optimum temperature is 19 degrees celsius, maybe we would even think better!

Maybe not a tank with aircon inside, but at least a bed with cold current running under neath and over the blankets…

Ah heck, i dont even use the air con at home (only leave windows open) ><

.

.

.

.

.

.

Now to move to expound on my theory
The correlation between hot weather and screwed up countries

Ladies and gentlemen, the sun is an Evil
Two key generalisations (which can be consider to be assertions but rather reasonable)
1. Most countries located near the equator with droughts and hot weather and all are poor and screwed up with corruption and everything
2. Most great thinkers and nobel prize winners are from Europe and temperate countries. Ever heard of a mala-….

Explanation:
1. It is harder to think in hot temperatures since the brain optimum is 19 degrees and it is easier to keep warm to be closer to 19 degrees than to cool down to 19. Plus the brain fnctions better in the cold than in the hot.
2. When its cold outside, people can’t do much work, they head into the house and spend the day doing nothing, thinking inevitably. With no winter, you work all year.

Limitations of argument
1. Lack of exposure to hot areas means that their brilliance is unrecognised — not exactly true, in these day and age of globalisation, that is not really the case. I mean there are nobel prize winers from China.
2. People in these areas are NVS (notverysmart) to begin with — the very fact that they settled down in these hot areas prove it.

Even i see the certain flaws of the argument, i need to buffer it up. hmm…