http://www.asos.com/search/primark?hrd=1&q=primark
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
ethics
This blog is completely off-topic from my usual posts, however it is something that I feel strongly about and would like to give my point. In recent news, France have passed the law for gay people to marry, being the 14th country to do so. I ask out-loud, why are people still offended by this? My parents have other views bordering the fence with being okay with it and thinking its not right to marry in a church. Quoting, "it's against nature and isn't right". Well neither are a lot of things in this world.
Is the human race meant to be this advanced that we forge together and wield weapons of mass destruction, blowing our own kind to pieces?
If we are the superior race, is it right for us to kill or torture animal species?
We are the top of the food chain, is it right to eat each other (seeing as fish eat fish)?
Maybe the answers are no but it still happens.
If evolution has taken other species to new, higher, immoral levels then why is it frowned upon for our own species to evolve also? Our earth goes through many dramatic changes in its life time; ice ages and fireballs, thus killing off species. Global warming may just be the start of another, maybe this reason is that there are too many of us. We are overpopulating the earth with high birth rates and lower death rates. My point being; why do we frown upon the people whose choices disable them to reproduce?
If we want to adopt a multicultural society, this means accepting other peoples faiths and religions (reluctantly). A decrease in our own religion, Christianity means that less people follow the Bible. Those who marry do not wish to commit themselves to God, but to each other in a way accepted by society, which is marrying in a Church.
Most people do not have a problem with gay marriage, it is the churches and groups of people belonging to different religions that appose to it.
Maybe it isn't natural for someone to be attracted to the same sex, but neither is the desire to kill, or the desire to take lives for the sake of religion. What we want from society is to build a picture of the perfect race, and cover up all that is "wrong".
Two people of the same sex wanting to marry is not on the same scale as taking a life, so why is it looked down on that way? If two people love each other and want to commit like any other loving couple they should be allowed to do so.
There are some people who are not apposed to gay marriages, but are apposed to the adopting of a child. "If you chose to be with the same sex, you give up that right to have a child".
Firstly, gay people do not "choose" to be gay. Second, a person who owns that right may abuse the right. A woman may sleep around and have children by multiple men. Does she still own that right?
If a gay couple would like a child, how is it different from a straight couple not wanting a child?
Thousands of pounds are spent by individual STRAIGHT couples on IVF treatment for a child. If they cannot produce a child, are they not in the same predicament as a gay couple who also cannot produce a child?
It should not be imperative for every living human to produce offspring, why does society say you have to have children?
I am a straight female who does not want children, I have always known I do not want children.
If I had always known I wanted a child and then later on in life were gay, why should that instinct be taken away from me from something that isn't my choice?
There are plenty children in the world up for adoption, who need loving parents to take care of them. Why should it matter what sexual preferences you have if you know you could love a child that isn't biologically yours, unconditionally?
There are bigger things in this world to appose to.
Is the human race meant to be this advanced that we forge together and wield weapons of mass destruction, blowing our own kind to pieces?
If we are the superior race, is it right for us to kill or torture animal species?
We are the top of the food chain, is it right to eat each other (seeing as fish eat fish)?
Maybe the answers are no but it still happens.
If evolution has taken other species to new, higher, immoral levels then why is it frowned upon for our own species to evolve also? Our earth goes through many dramatic changes in its life time; ice ages and fireballs, thus killing off species. Global warming may just be the start of another, maybe this reason is that there are too many of us. We are overpopulating the earth with high birth rates and lower death rates. My point being; why do we frown upon the people whose choices disable them to reproduce?
If we want to adopt a multicultural society, this means accepting other peoples faiths and religions (reluctantly). A decrease in our own religion, Christianity means that less people follow the Bible. Those who marry do not wish to commit themselves to God, but to each other in a way accepted by society, which is marrying in a Church.
Most people do not have a problem with gay marriage, it is the churches and groups of people belonging to different religions that appose to it.
Maybe it isn't natural for someone to be attracted to the same sex, but neither is the desire to kill, or the desire to take lives for the sake of religion. What we want from society is to build a picture of the perfect race, and cover up all that is "wrong".
Two people of the same sex wanting to marry is not on the same scale as taking a life, so why is it looked down on that way? If two people love each other and want to commit like any other loving couple they should be allowed to do so.
There are some people who are not apposed to gay marriages, but are apposed to the adopting of a child. "If you chose to be with the same sex, you give up that right to have a child".
Firstly, gay people do not "choose" to be gay. Second, a person who owns that right may abuse the right. A woman may sleep around and have children by multiple men. Does she still own that right?
If a gay couple would like a child, how is it different from a straight couple not wanting a child?
Thousands of pounds are spent by individual STRAIGHT couples on IVF treatment for a child. If they cannot produce a child, are they not in the same predicament as a gay couple who also cannot produce a child?
It should not be imperative for every living human to produce offspring, why does society say you have to have children?
I am a straight female who does not want children, I have always known I do not want children.
If I had always known I wanted a child and then later on in life were gay, why should that instinct be taken away from me from something that isn't my choice?
There are plenty children in the world up for adoption, who need loving parents to take care of them. Why should it matter what sexual preferences you have if you know you could love a child that isn't biologically yours, unconditionally?
There are bigger things in this world to appose to.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Happy
Ladies and gents!
I seem to be posting less and less but this is for a good reason. My life at present is quite busy, with college and a job, I am also taking driving lessons. I started them in January and booked my theory test not long into them, spare time has been utilised in preparation of this test. Despite my worries and nerves, I passed the theory test! This I am very happy about, then in the same week I received news from the one university I had heard nothing from. Brunel university, west London had offered me a scholarship. The next week I had been given a conditional offer to attend. A happy month I should say!
Also, with the release of the new Tomb Raider, I have had little free time to blog, excuse me! I'm actually writing this blog on my way to work, so I will post again soon!
I seem to be posting less and less but this is for a good reason. My life at present is quite busy, with college and a job, I am also taking driving lessons. I started them in January and booked my theory test not long into them, spare time has been utilised in preparation of this test. Despite my worries and nerves, I passed the theory test! This I am very happy about, then in the same week I received news from the one university I had heard nothing from. Brunel university, west London had offered me a scholarship. The next week I had been given a conditional offer to attend. A happy month I should say!
Also, with the release of the new Tomb Raider, I have had little free time to blog, excuse me! I'm actually writing this blog on my way to work, so I will post again soon!
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
BAKING AND GAMING COMBINED
I feel I have share this with the world. I MADE MINECRAFT CUPCAKES!
I made these for Valentines day as a less cliche/cheesy and more imaginative gift for the other half. According to more experienced bakers' recipes, these creatures are very hard to make but thanks to eBay i was able to achieve it more reasonably using Minecraft Cake Toppers!
FIRST STEP: Purchase Minecraft cake toppers (and any other ingredients)
Next step, pre-heat oven to 180/gas4 and put cake cases in your cake/muffin tin
I used a basic recipe for the plain cakes (for the piggies and creepers)
110g/4oz butter of softened margarine
110g/40z caster sugar
110g/4oz self raising flour
2 medium eggs
1tsp vanilla extract
2tbsp milk
I used an all in one method to mix all of the ingredients then used a hand mixer to make sure the mixture was free of lumps. I spooned the ingredients into the cases and baked for 20-24 minuted until the tops were springy. I took them out and left them to cool on a rack.
I then re-made the mixture, but substituted 1oz of flour for 1oz of cocoa, making the mixture chocolate. I repeated the steps until I had chocolate and vanilla cupcakes.
Now the fun begins!
I used butter cream for the frosting. I followed the recipe on the back of the icing sugar box to create the butter cream but I added cocoa for the chocolate cakes (cows). Before adding the butter cream to the cakes, I smeared a small amount of strawberry jam to the top of the cakes, then layered on the butter cream, sticking the cut-out rice toppers whilst still wet.
For the creepers I made a new batch of butter cream, instead adding green food-colouring and following the same as before.
And you can guess, for the piggies, I used pink colouring in a new batch.
They are time consuming but totally worth it and they went down a TREAT!
And the finished result!
Enjoy!
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Next Gen Consoles?
Okay. I have been hearing more and more talk recently about the announcement of next gen consoles. I think this is wayyyy too soon! I have never been a Microsoft kinda girl, so I will comment on what I know, which is Playstation.
Put it into perspective:
The Atari 2600's life span was 15 years, the PlayStation 2's was 13 years and 7 years for PlayStation 3 is way overdue?
As it stands, there has not been much of an improvement in gaming and technology within the past 7 years as there was between the PS2 and the PS3. Also take into account the amount of upgrades the PS3 has had. There has been 14 different variations of PlayStation 3 released within those 7 years. Upgrading hard-drive space each time, making them more advanced and even chopping the fat, so to speak. Technically, we've had a brand new PS3 console only 6 months ago: the 500GB 'Super Slim' console, available in 3 different colours.
When the Playstation 3 came out, it was a revolution; advancement in graphics to HD 780p definition, bluray compatibility, downloads making it 3D compatible, a new 'Sixaxis' feature control system, USB ports, easier and free online mode, network settings, PlayStation's own virtual 3D programme, trophies, catch-up TV, music, downloadable games, themes, trailers etc. The list goes on. If 3D gaming is the next big thing, Playtations Firmware update 3.30 allows this compatibility. What more is there to add that will be worth paying £500+ for?
More to the point, will Sony even be making a profit?
Put it into perspective:
The Atari 2600's life span was 15 years, the PlayStation 2's was 13 years and 7 years for PlayStation 3 is way overdue?
As it stands, there has not been much of an improvement in gaming and technology within the past 7 years as there was between the PS2 and the PS3. Also take into account the amount of upgrades the PS3 has had. There has been 14 different variations of PlayStation 3 released within those 7 years. Upgrading hard-drive space each time, making them more advanced and even chopping the fat, so to speak. Technically, we've had a brand new PS3 console only 6 months ago: the 500GB 'Super Slim' console, available in 3 different colours.
When the Playstation 3 came out, it was a revolution; advancement in graphics to HD 780p definition, bluray compatibility, downloads making it 3D compatible, a new 'Sixaxis' feature control system, USB ports, easier and free online mode, network settings, PlayStation's own virtual 3D programme, trophies, catch-up TV, music, downloadable games, themes, trailers etc. The list goes on. If 3D gaming is the next big thing, Playtations Firmware update 3.30 allows this compatibility. What more is there to add that will be worth paying £500+ for?
More to the point, will Sony even be making a profit?
Monday, February 4, 2013
GIRLY OR SOPHISTICATED?
Just a quick update, I was just on Topshop's website (unusual for me) looking at dresses.
The reason for this being that I fancied one of those pretty black skater dresses that seemingly go with everything. Just one problem, I don't think those girly frills suit my figure. Not in the way that I have a masculine frame, just that flicky-out-fabrics (great terminology!) don't fit well with me.
(not to say they're not classy) But I prefer classy tight bodycon/figure hugging midi dresses as they reveal more shape. I think it's much classier to have a dress that covers your whole body, but teases by showing your silhouette, than having a dress that's showing a bit of leg.
The reason for this being that I fancied one of those pretty black skater dresses that seemingly go with everything. Just one problem, I don't think those girly frills suit my figure. Not in the way that I have a masculine frame, just that flicky-out-fabrics (great terminology!) don't fit well with me.
(not to say they're not classy) But I prefer classy tight bodycon/figure hugging midi dresses as they reveal more shape. I think it's much classier to have a dress that covers your whole body, but teases by showing your silhouette, than having a dress that's showing a bit of leg.
Also, I will take the time to request ALL women to follow the rule.
Boobs OR legs.
Not both.
If you have major cleavage, cover your legs.
If you're wearing a belt, cover your boobs.
Simple.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Networking
Networking is great!
Follow me on Instagram - @bodilyfluids
Twitter - @bodilyfluidss
Playstation Network - bodilyfluids
Tumblr - bodilyfluidss
Steam - bodilyfluids
Follow me on Instagram - @bodilyfluids
Twitter - @bodilyfluidss
Playstation Network - bodilyfluids
Tumblr - bodilyfluidss
Steam - bodilyfluids
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)