Well, I'm not much of a teacher but if the need is there and I need the job, sure.
Same Q.
Printable View
Well, I'm not much of a teacher but if the need is there and I need the job, sure.
Same Q.
Is that my last resort? I guess I would go teach prisoners.
If you only had enough money to buy one or the other would you buy a cute pair of shoes or dinner? Buy the shoes would mean you would have to go to bed hungry.
Dinner. Can you see me in pink high heels? I would have to shave my legs.
Same Q.
Definately dinner. Cant go to bed hungry.
Same ques.
I was thinking of a very manly pair of prada shoes for you virgie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well, I'm bucking the system and I'd go for the shoes.
Same Q.
I don't think they make a pink pump in a size 12. I gotta eat! :lol:
Now if the choice is between buying a good book you haven read and going to bed hungry, which do you choose? :)
I have had that choice a few times, actually. Usually what I did: purchase book, then ask my mother if I can come over for dinner. :lol:
To the person below me: good one, Pendragon - a true question for bookworms, same question --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I hate to be hungry. As much as I would prefer the book, the stomach pangs would force me to go for the dinner.
Same Q.
Sometimes, I don't mind being hungry but my mother hates it. This often happens to me that I don't eat breakfast, lunch or dinner but then she forcefully makes me eat it.
Same Question.
Book. I can skip meals at ease if I want to. One stops feeling hungry after a while...it's healthy to fast sometimes. (If only for the one meal :p)
Same question, it's a good one.
As I have said earlier I just cant go to bed hungry so I would buy the dinner.
Same ques.
Definitely the book.
Same Question
Back to me, huh? Despite my size, my appetite is surprisingly small, and I can skip meals without harm as long as I keep liquids in my body. Book every time, of course! :nod:
What makes you choose the book--a friend's recommendation or your own instinct?
Considering my friends' taste in reading. . . definitely my own instinct.
Great question Pen -
Soo, next poster, same questions
If the book is really this good, I've already read it!
What's for dinner?
I'd read and eat at the same time. ooohhh multitasking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I choose a book by following my instincts & luckily I choose good books.
Same ques.
Both, but, not to sound so boastful, I usually choose my own instinct of reading a book over my friends' or family's opinions, though I respect their taste. Hence, if I had money only to purchase one book, and had to choose between a book I wanted to read and a recommended book, I would buy the one I desired, and read the recommended one later. :)
To the person below me: since I think most people on here most likely write, if you earned immense amounts of publication of your work, would you discuss your own literature on this forum? :brow:
i'm not sure... but i know that my writing skills are not nearly good to even think about publishing.. so.. it most likely not posiable...
Same Question Por favor!
Actually, I can't write poetry or fiction worth beans (this is NOT false modesty here), so if by some miracle anything of mine were to get published, it would be lit crit.
If I WERE able to write poetry/regular prose. . . .no, I don't think so. In the first case, I wouldn't want to influence or limit other people's readings of my work. Second, mystery is a good thing. . . if a work is too transparent, or is made so by excessive authorial exegesis, it seems to lose its power.
If my crit were raised as a topic, I probably would discuss it, as the topic of the work itself would be the writing of some other author. I would not, however, post portions of my published criticism in individual author threads in order to get into a discussion on it, or to pass it off as sponatneous thought.
Next poster - Same Question
Yes, I would, for one simple reason that has stuck with me since my sophomore year at High School. We were studying literature and being required to critique some poetry and explain what we thought the poet was trying to convey. A small plurality of the class had arrived at generally similar conclusions, but there was also a great of variety among the conclusions reached by the remainder of the class. I recall raising my hand and asking, "What did the poet himself ever say or discuss to clarify what was going through his head at the time?" What I really wanted to know was, why should there be such diversity as to meaning? Isn't the point of writing to clearly express a thought, code it into language, transmit it to another, and expect it to be decoded back into a thought roughly equal to the original thought? If so, what did the poet want to transmit? The teacher's answer was that good poetry is supposed to be open to interpretation, leaving it to the reader to decide what the poet meant. I found -- and still find -- this opinion to be offensive. As a writer, I do NOT want readers around the world deciding FOR ME what I meant to say. If my writing is that vague, then I don't deserve to be earning income from sales of writing samples. Therefore, if there is to be a critical discussion of my work, I'd like to be a contributing member of that discussion.
Same question to the next person to post. I'd like to hear thoughtful presentations other points of view.
I entirely respect your opinion, Kelly Sprout, and find it interesting and unique. To answer the question, however, I do not think I would discuss my own literature, if I suddenly attained mass publication (which I have never attempted, regardless). The reason has partially to do with modesty, and the other out of curiosity. If someone sincerely asked me what I 'meant' or 'intended,' I would provide minimal discussion, but my curiosity would rely entirely on what Kelly Sprout mentioned - the multiple interpretations; I would love to toss several ingredients in a story, know it for my own, then see what others make of the ingredients - in fact, in some of my more obscure works, which I have let others read, my intention has seemed to provoke subjectivity.
To the person below me: in a given situation, would you ever intervene if you saw a mother/father very inappropriately disciplining a child in public?
I would and I have. I grew up with abuse, and I won't stand for it now. On the other hand, I've seen parents who allow their kids to behave like monsters in public, and I'd love to tell them "Perhaps we should have your children raised by someone who can instill more discipline and values in them, such as a pack of wolves." So it kinda goes both ways.
I know I tried to do my best by my own children, and there's been times I've really wanted to say when someone asked "Is that your kid?"; and I look over and see what him or her is actually up to at the moment ,"I've never seen them before.”
But parenting is not easy, so for those of you who are not yet parents, think about it. It's an life-long contract that never really goes away.
I'll pass your excellent question, Mono:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mono
I think the key element to this question lies in two words: inappropriately disciplining. What exactly is inappropriate discipline? Does it mean "striking; physical discipline" or "excessively harsh" or "excessively lax" or "a punishment that does not fit the crime"? I also (in this philosophical element of the hypothetical) wonder, "Do I know all the facts? Do I understand what went on just before what I'm witnessing now?" The last consideration I have is: inappropriate by whose standards?
If after considering all of those extenuations (which would need to take only a few moments to consider or the opportunity would be lost), I still believed that the discipline was indeed inappropriate, yes, I would interject myself into the conflict in the hopes that my action would disrupt the chain of events currently taking place.
It would be very important to me, however, to not be sending messages like any of the following:
a. You are poor parent.
b. My philosophy or technique of discipline is the only right way to go about it. All other ways are wrong.
c. The child is always right.
d. This is inappropriate for public viewing so do it in secret and I'll look the other way.
I hardly think that this topic has been explored thoroughly, so, same question to the next person.
Yeah, Kelly said it well. It would have to depend on the level of discipline.
Same Q.
I would, and I have. Few things irritate, unsettle, and make me as depressed and angry as any kind of abuse occurring in front of me (whether physical, psychological, or neglect). I normally feel like a very shy, quiet person, but, in cases such as these, I always do something about the situation.
To the person below me: would you ever inherit a family legacy (such as the owning of a family company, for example), though the inheritance does not entirely interest you?
Tough one. A family legacy is an obligation. I would have to accept it and perhaps set up someone to manage it if possible. I would hope there would be someone else in the family that would do it.
Same Q
I would accpet it & hire someone else to take care of it if I am not interested in the up-keeping of it.
Would you bring up your kids / have brought up your kids the same way your parents brought you up ?
Absolutely fabulous question. One of the best "Would You" questions ever.
I would. But the circumstances are so different (my parents were poor) that it's impossible to replicate. Plus my personality is different from my father and my wife is different from my mother.
Same Q
No. My parents were divorced. I grew up without a dad. So my children know the warmth of a dad's love. I also had no childhood, as I literally had to work my way through high school. I worked on a hourly wage since age 12. My children will have the chance just to be kids. They work by their choice, to have spending money and to save for that all-important car. I wish to give my children what I never had.
I agree that it's the best question in a long while. Who's next to answer it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakira
I would say yes. I had a pretty ideal childhood, all things considered. I had both parents (They are still together after 36 years) and knew that they loved me. I don't think I ever heard them fight. They instilled values in me and supported me. They tried to give me every advantage they could, even on limited means. I was disciplined, but I always knew WHY - looking back, it was a great way to grow up.
Next Poster - Same question
Individually, my mother and father seemed very good parents, but, as a couple, who later divorced, they had a horrible marriage, which makes for a partially unpleasant childhood. In terms of raising children, I thought they both did amazingly well with my brothers and I, and, of course, they made mistakes that anyone could make, but none that seemed greatly traumatizing in the least.
If I had children, I would not raise them the same, though certain aspects of child-raising seem inevitable to have influence from one's parents; I would quickly adopt the positive raising techniques used by the parents, however, gladly. Firstly, and most importantly, seeming their biggest fault, I would much sooner establish a very stable and very comfortable relationship before hastening into marriage (if ever).
To the person below me: very good question, so I pass it along --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakira
I would give my children more freedom later in life by giving them stronger discipline earlier in their lives.
Not that it is in any way relevant because I don't intend to have children, ever. I really don't like them. All those obnoxious little drewling bastards crying as loud as they can, and so on. Not something I enjoy. I prefer a total lack of children in the world.
Same Question, it's an interesting one.
hmm... I'm torn here. My childhood wasn't the best, definately not the worst. Things that happened I wouldn't want my kids to be exposed to but at the same time I don't want my kids to live in ivory towers.
Same Question:
Originally Posted by Shakira
Would you bring up your kids / have brought up your kids the same way your parents brought you up ?
No I wouldn't bring up my kids the way my parents brought us up. My childhood literally ended at age 8 when I became aware of the fights between my parents. These fights were & still are horrible filled with mental & physical abuses & have had a considerable effect on my mind. The comfort which I had to find in family, I got in food & as a result of this I kept on gaining weight. I never had any friends as I was a meek,fat & afraid to communicate with anyone & this hampered my personailty until 3 years back when I entered university. I definately would not give my children such a "childhood".
Same question continues.
No new posts . . . come on people I really want to know your views on this.
I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakira
And I wouldn't.
So I didn't.
But in the end, I did.
I was raised in a strict, fundamentalist Christian environment by parents who, while they were not fanatics, were not nominal Christians, either. We attended church every week. We had family evening worships. We asked for blessings on the food at our table. I and my siblings attended Christian schools instead of public schools. I entered my young adulthood with strong convictions and a strong understanding of why I held them.
I raised my daughters the same way.
Now, my daughters are grown and raising families of their own. My parents got divorced and with the divorce, left the church. My brother picked up smoking and raises hell every chance he gets. My sister believes in a greater being but she doesn't know who or what it is and she doesn't belong to any religion anymore. I became disallusioned with faith early into my third marriage and seriously question the concept of any kind of consciousness, benelovent or malevolent, having any kind of control at all over time, origins, or destinies. One of my daughters is now a member of a religion totally upside-down-inside-out-polarized-left-to-right-handed opposite to the one I raised her in. The other daughter has a domestic partner of the same sex and still attends church.
So, I did. I wouldn't. I didn't. But I did.
Is there more to this question? There could be. But this thread has been silent now for a brief period, so maybe there isn't. I'll offer the next person a choice.
You may continue this question, or you may answer the following one:
How do you make the tough decisions, the ones where nobody wins or the ones where you must weight the needs of the one against the needs of the many, or the ones where you can't tell in advance which choice will be the worst one?
If there's no way of knowing which one does more harm...well, what choice does one have but to simply wing it?
Same question.
That is a really good question too. If you can't tell, which is the better choice, delay, if it is an option, until one gets more clarity. Search for data and advice. If none of that is possible, I wouldn't impulsively wing it as Robin says, I would slowly venture in while trying to maintain as many options available as possible. The differences between my answer and Robin's is probably a result of different ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly_Sprout
Well, by wing it, I mean go by instinct, not necessarily impulse.