What is condoms. There is piece of material in special shape that first of all prevent from pregnancy, for this purpose it was invented. And second of all it prevent from some diseases.
Does it irresponsible? What does word irresponsible mean? Irresponsible is person or behaviour that shows lack of responsibility. In other way spreading condoms amongst the youngster has double attitude. From the one hand when we diffuse rubber things to young people we make them a hint: sex is not easy things. Pregnancy lead to new life that will demand attention to itself for the first time, and regular sex with many partner lead to the diseases. So if you like sex, it's OK, but prevent themselves at first. But from the other hand we at the same time bless spontaneous sex. We propagate sexual relationship just for pleasure. For animal it's normal, but we are human. Finally we have bible that condemn diversity in sexual life. We can discuss for good about true Bible or not, but instruction that given their help our civilisation to survive. Now we leave in time when respect to Holy script of one part of mankind mixes with disrespect to the leads given by It from the other part of globe.
Does it dangerous? Of course it not. But what kind of dangerous do you mean. The worst thing you can do with condom is to fill it with water and though it on the head of the strangers for the roof or balcony. But with the same success you can through the kitchen knife or piece of brick that are more easy accessible. If regard dangerous of access to condom in the way of propaganda of unleashed sexual life, to my mind, it's ridiculous, because sexual desire is in our blood and head. Hormonal explosion in young people is very difficult to curb and control. Whence life was difficult and law was harsh sexual control was part of community obligation. Bad sexual behaviour and sexual abuse punished on the spot and punishment I guess was strong enough to take control on the youngsters. Now when life is easy and law wasn't severer to boys and girls that would like to experiment with their body access to condoms isn't help to control their behaviour and prevent or advertise sex between them.
Does access to condoms could be named as bad behaviour? Actually I am not sure that I have right to condemn that person who try to make condoms easy accessible to the young people. We live in society that struggle between the religious past and secular up-to-date. In previous time when sex was taboo for discussion it was easy to condemn that one who would like openly to talk about it. Now we live in the time when discussion is the main instrument to find the right way. And it's not obvious which way is right or wrong. Fist task of any government is prevent their citizens from the perils. Sexual diseases is one of them. Condoms is obviously help to prevent your body from these diseases. Do condoms prevent your soul? I don't know.
524 words.
Friday 14 June 2013
Thursday 18 April 2013
22. Does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?
22. Does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?
There is very vital question. Especially for government. Because uncontrolled birth rate increase criminal situation in society. Sexual intercourse became more available in modern time that about hundred years ago. Why does it happen. May be women and girls feel themselves more protected by law and financially that take care about child isn't problem.
After 1986 when HIV appeared on the globe condoms gain one more role, it not only prevent pregnancy but prevent disease transmission. Then easy access to the condom is vital for the health safety in society. Because all expenditure for the treatment of the sick people only can take the government.
After this free spread of the condom became popular in many country. Did it take pregnancy under control? I don't have statistic evidence. But to my mind age of the teenager who became acquaint with sex decrease. Age of children who obtain sexual experience because of the advertising of the condoms and healthy sexual life became more and more low. It can't decrease constantly, because in the nature hormonal move to the whole ready for sex person have his age. The nature of every youngster is craving for experimenting with himself and with surrounding. So that's why early pregnancy possible even if there are plenty of condoms available. Let's take in advance that younger person the less feel of responsibility has it. That's why availability of condoms can't be obstacle for the sex without condom.
Of course big rate of early birth can lead to the same early birth rate after 15 years when children which was born by children became ready to conceive.
That's why easy achieving don't guarantee low birth control. But anyway it should be easy achieving. But not only condoms, but information about responsibility for the early sex intercourse. In previous time church play some role in restraining early sexual activity. Women and girl was strongly dependent to the men's income and there were a lot of example of the women who suffered with bunch of children without any ground income. This to my mind restrain young girl to start experiment with her body and offer it to young boy. So girls wasn't easy achievable. Now because of increasing of standard of leaving there isn't problem to cope with problem for young women. That lead to more untied behaviour of young girl. They feel themselves defended in modern society. They easily naked part of their body and make a hint that they are not object against sexual contact even on one night. Of course this behaviour is a part of policy of free access to condoms. But I think only condoms don't resolve the problem.
Early birth rate depends on the sexual activity of the young girl and boy, it depend on their understanding of possible consequences and benefits.
468 words.
There is very vital question. Especially for government. Because uncontrolled birth rate increase criminal situation in society. Sexual intercourse became more available in modern time that about hundred years ago. Why does it happen. May be women and girls feel themselves more protected by law and financially that take care about child isn't problem.
After 1986 when HIV appeared on the globe condoms gain one more role, it not only prevent pregnancy but prevent disease transmission. Then easy access to the condom is vital for the health safety in society. Because all expenditure for the treatment of the sick people only can take the government.
After this free spread of the condom became popular in many country. Did it take pregnancy under control? I don't have statistic evidence. But to my mind age of the teenager who became acquaint with sex decrease. Age of children who obtain sexual experience because of the advertising of the condoms and healthy sexual life became more and more low. It can't decrease constantly, because in the nature hormonal move to the whole ready for sex person have his age. The nature of every youngster is craving for experimenting with himself and with surrounding. So that's why early pregnancy possible even if there are plenty of condoms available. Let's take in advance that younger person the less feel of responsibility has it. That's why availability of condoms can't be obstacle for the sex without condom.
Of course big rate of early birth can lead to the same early birth rate after 15 years when children which was born by children became ready to conceive.
That's why easy achieving don't guarantee low birth control. But anyway it should be easy achieving. But not only condoms, but information about responsibility for the early sex intercourse. In previous time church play some role in restraining early sexual activity. Women and girl was strongly dependent to the men's income and there were a lot of example of the women who suffered with bunch of children without any ground income. This to my mind restrain young girl to start experiment with her body and offer it to young boy. So girls wasn't easy achievable. Now because of increasing of standard of leaving there isn't problem to cope with problem for young women. That lead to more untied behaviour of young girl. They feel themselves defended in modern society. They easily naked part of their body and make a hint that they are not object against sexual contact even on one night. Of course this behaviour is a part of policy of free access to condoms. But I think only condoms don't resolve the problem.
Early birth rate depends on the sexual activity of the young girl and boy, it depend on their understanding of possible consequences and benefits.
468 words.
Friday 12 April 2013
21. Should the government have a say in our diets?
21. Should the government have a say in our diets?
The answer is simple, yes of course it should. But as it said the devil hide in the details. It is simple to constitute that our government should participate in the health of their citizens. But how?
Let's muse about this a little. If government one day had decided to take care in the health of the people the next step would be to ask the scientist about this. What kind of diet should it promote.
I need to admit that around us a lot of freaks and nuts. There is a lot of normal people who don't care what they eat, care of course but they don't spend too much time in the quantity of calories, fat or carbonates it their food. They just want the food to be tasty and delicious. They usually resolve the question what to buy only from the weight of their income.
Some of the people like very grease and fat diet. They eat fried pork and junk food, they suffer from the obesity and probably predisposed to the cardiovascular diseases. But try to take off their fatty pork or forbid them to enjoy their hot-dogs and may be they begin to smoke or drink too much alcohol instead.
There is only one group of people who will be glad that control - there are different vegan nuts and vegetarian freaks.
So government of the small country had decided that their citizen eats unhealthy and begin campaign to control diet of their citizen. Then first law should be to forbid the growth of the pig, because people eat too much pork and clogged their veins and died from the heart attacks and strokes. Next day main streets and squares were full of the indignant farmer who through their pigs under the feet of the PM, member of cabinets and deputies of parliament. Next day under the pressure of the farmer government decided not to forbid but to impose taxes on the growth of pigs meat, and price for the pig increases enormously. Next day the main square of the country was flooded with indignant pensioners and low bracket category of population. They cry we are hungry, give us cheap food. Because that price on pork increases, that's why mob rush to buy the meat of paltry and especially beef so the price for beef increase three times and the price for chicken and turkey just doubled. Next day the strong party organized from the people who like to drink something stronger then beer and they do need to eat something more ground than apple. The leader of the party became very popular and under the fear to fail nearest election and under the pressure of the strong parliament lobby who suffer from the high price for the meat PM make statement that he personally decide to abolish that shameful and disgraceful decision of the Health minister and on the same speech he gracefully fired unhappy minister and his assistants.
495 words
The answer is simple, yes of course it should. But as it said the devil hide in the details. It is simple to constitute that our government should participate in the health of their citizens. But how?
Let's muse about this a little. If government one day had decided to take care in the health of the people the next step would be to ask the scientist about this. What kind of diet should it promote.
I need to admit that around us a lot of freaks and nuts. There is a lot of normal people who don't care what they eat, care of course but they don't spend too much time in the quantity of calories, fat or carbonates it their food. They just want the food to be tasty and delicious. They usually resolve the question what to buy only from the weight of their income.
Some of the people like very grease and fat diet. They eat fried pork and junk food, they suffer from the obesity and probably predisposed to the cardiovascular diseases. But try to take off their fatty pork or forbid them to enjoy their hot-dogs and may be they begin to smoke or drink too much alcohol instead.
There is only one group of people who will be glad that control - there are different vegan nuts and vegetarian freaks.
So government of the small country had decided that their citizen eats unhealthy and begin campaign to control diet of their citizen. Then first law should be to forbid the growth of the pig, because people eat too much pork and clogged their veins and died from the heart attacks and strokes. Next day main streets and squares were full of the indignant farmer who through their pigs under the feet of the PM, member of cabinets and deputies of parliament. Next day under the pressure of the farmer government decided not to forbid but to impose taxes on the growth of pigs meat, and price for the pig increases enormously. Next day the main square of the country was flooded with indignant pensioners and low bracket category of population. They cry we are hungry, give us cheap food. Because that price on pork increases, that's why mob rush to buy the meat of paltry and especially beef so the price for beef increase three times and the price for chicken and turkey just doubled. Next day the strong party organized from the people who like to drink something stronger then beer and they do need to eat something more ground than apple. The leader of the party became very popular and under the fear to fail nearest election and under the pressure of the strong parliament lobby who suffer from the high price for the meat PM make statement that he personally decide to abolish that shameful and disgraceful decision of the Health minister and on the same speech he gracefully fired unhappy minister and his assistants.
495 words
Tuesday 29 January 2013
20. Should companies market to children? (455)
20. Should companies market to children?
Very interesting question, and answer for it is simple yes they could, they should and of course the would. How do you imagine our children without their needs. Person from the very birth born with needs and for that needs we parents were put to guard. So market to the children divided on several type.
First of all it aims to the parents who keep their children. Don't you notice sometime how peculiar and whimsical clothes children wear, and they are not at the age they can make decision what to put on, their parents made that decisions. And they try to compete with another parents and that compete begot market to the children notably to the parents. That was the first market it usually include clothes.
Don't forget that children in the early baby age have some plain needs, they want to eat something, don't object to drink something and most of time they sleep, and between sleeping and eating they are laughing and crying. That every point I mention multiply several market each. What eat and drink, not every baby drink the milk from breast and many of them ceased to suck after a while that create strong industry of different powder and mix. Children don't like feel uncomfortable after they do they basic needs which is below the belt and that needs create strong and lucrative industry of diaper or nappy. They parents want the to laugh that why the powerful industry of baby toys is created. But the last needs isn't children's one, it can be related to the first section.
They more baby become resembled to the children the more canny and sophisticated become industry for children. Children begin to obtain their own conscious needs and market begin to push on their unconsciousness. Parents watch TV and children begin to join to this occupation and market shove the ad for them, not for parents but for children and nearest tour to the supermarket can be turn to disaster for parents it they wouldn't buy the toy or some saturated with last chemistry progress candies, which their child had just observed on the colourful picture on the screen.
Children became older and they begin to read, and strong and profitable industry of books and magazines mingled with advertising different toys, games and sweets on front or back cover join in.
Conclusion do you so wise and strong to take profit from the mankind and to give possibility to balance society. I don't develop my notion about that market for the children not satisfy but to balance community. It gives possibility for one to spend and for several to earn. Don't forget about that before vote against the market for the children.
(455 words)
Very interesting question, and answer for it is simple yes they could, they should and of course the would. How do you imagine our children without their needs. Person from the very birth born with needs and for that needs we parents were put to guard. So market to the children divided on several type.
First of all it aims to the parents who keep their children. Don't you notice sometime how peculiar and whimsical clothes children wear, and they are not at the age they can make decision what to put on, their parents made that decisions. And they try to compete with another parents and that compete begot market to the children notably to the parents. That was the first market it usually include clothes.
Don't forget that children in the early baby age have some plain needs, they want to eat something, don't object to drink something and most of time they sleep, and between sleeping and eating they are laughing and crying. That every point I mention multiply several market each. What eat and drink, not every baby drink the milk from breast and many of them ceased to suck after a while that create strong industry of different powder and mix. Children don't like feel uncomfortable after they do they basic needs which is below the belt and that needs create strong and lucrative industry of diaper or nappy. They parents want the to laugh that why the powerful industry of baby toys is created. But the last needs isn't children's one, it can be related to the first section.
They more baby become resembled to the children the more canny and sophisticated become industry for children. Children begin to obtain their own conscious needs and market begin to push on their unconsciousness. Parents watch TV and children begin to join to this occupation and market shove the ad for them, not for parents but for children and nearest tour to the supermarket can be turn to disaster for parents it they wouldn't buy the toy or some saturated with last chemistry progress candies, which their child had just observed on the colourful picture on the screen.
Children became older and they begin to read, and strong and profitable industry of books and magazines mingled with advertising different toys, games and sweets on front or back cover join in.
Conclusion do you so wise and strong to take profit from the mankind and to give possibility to balance society. I don't develop my notion about that market for the children not satisfy but to balance community. It gives possibility for one to spend and for several to earn. Don't forget about that before vote against the market for the children.
(455 words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)