A Lonely Life

 

picnic-bench-in-snow-29941281359497toaj
When the cold and wind of life wears you down, you find a cold snow-covered bench to rest yourself.

 

 

A poem to share and analyse today by Ella Wheeler Wilcox:

Solitude

Laugh, and the world laughs with you;
Weep, and you weep alone;
For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth,
But has trouble enough of its own.
Sing, and the hills will answer;
Sigh, it is lost on the air;
The echoes bound to a joyful sound,
But shrink from voicing care.
Rejoice, and men will seek you;
Grieve, and they turn and go;
They want full measure of all your pleasure,
But they do not need your woe.
Be glad, and your friends are many;
Be sad, and you lose them all,—
There are none to decline your nectared wine,
But alone you must drink life’s gall.
Feast, and your halls are crowded;
Fast, and the world goes by.
Succeed and give, and it helps you live,
But no man can help you die.
There is room in the halls of pleasure
For a large and lordly train,
But one by one we must all file on
Through the narrow aisles of pain.
Analysis:
This poem resonates with us through our shared experiences and sobers us through its masterful usage of compare and contrast. It also reveals an intrinsic part of human nature– that of denial. We hate the sad and unpleasant and seek to avoid it at all costs. Even if it a loved one that is hurting, we would rather get it over with as soon as possible to move on to happier things. While it is something good to surround ourselves with positive things, the poem exudes a much more negative attitude towards this side of human nature. It shows a side of human selfishness, the very sign of mortality itself. After all, only one with earthly needs is able to deprive others of the same needs in order to satisfy himself.
It also shows how uncaring the world is by the line:
Sing, and the hills will answer; Sigh, it is lost on the air
It is not other humans that deny suffering, but also the earth. The earth, something that should give us all that we need, is not only unmovable but also impervious to human suffering.
This poem encourages you to sit down next to the abandoned, the neglected and the dejected. Listen to them. After all, whatever else you may have in common, everyone has the human experience and you may one day be in need of someone to talk to you while you’re down.

Unit III Key Terms List

Unit III Key terms and Concepts

First Bank of the United States

Hamilton’s Reports (Public Credit, the Bank, Manufactures)

Whiskey Rebellion/excise tax

Hamiltonian v. Jeffersonian philosophy

Loose v. strict construction

Federalist Party

Republican (Democratic-Republican) Party

The First Party System

the “elastic clause”

Washington’s Farewell Address

Bill of Rights

Napoleonic Wars and U.S. foreign policy

Neutrality Proclamation of 1793

Jay Treaty

Pinckney Treaty

Citizen Genet

Elections of 1796, 1800, and 1820

X, Y, and Z Affair

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions

The Alien and Sedition Acts (know specific acts)

The “Quasi War”

Convention of 1800

Convention of 1818

Adams-Onis Treaty (1819)

Louisiana Purchase

Hartford Convention

Tariff of 1816

Second Bank of the U.S.

Embargo Act

Non-Intercourse Act

Macon’s Bill #2

Impressment

“War Hawks”

War of 1812 – causes and effects

Monroe Doctrine

Missouri Compromise

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Fletcher v. Peck (1818)

Dartmouth v. Woodward (1817)

The “American System”

Erie Canal

John Quincy Adams

Henry Clay

John C. Calhoun

“Republican motherhood”

The “Era of Good Feelings”

Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address

Hamilton’s Plans

Story Starter: Deathfriend

 

She was five at the time. It was her first day of kindergarten on an otherwise normal day. She was waiting by the school gates waiting for the sight of her mother’s red hair. Her backpack was an unfamiliar weight on her back. She shifted the straps uncomfortably. Several of her new classmates waved to her as they passed her, hand in hand with their own parents. She waved back with her right hand.

It’s funny how she could still remember each of their faces clearly. The boy with sandy-colored hair, the girl with freckles and an overbite, the curly-haired girl in her flowery skirt, the boy with the Pokemon cap and his deck of cards. She smiled. That same boy lived next door to her now. She had taken a liking to him the first time she’s seen him. It was a child’s infatuation. She liked the way his eyes lit up when he talked about his cards, the way he frowned in concentration and the way he treated everyone fairly. Maybe a shadow of that childhood infatuation still remained. She shook her head. That doesn’t matter anymore. She looked down at her left hand.

Through her five-year-old eyes, she saw her pudgy fingers holding tightly onto her masterpiece as if it would fly away.  A voice called her name. She looked up, neck craned, searching for the source of the voice. “Here, mommy!” Her mom’s red hair came bobbing into view and her fingers loosened. The piece of paper flew away, carried away by a sudden breeze. Thinking back on it now, it seemed like Fate was taunting her. When she was little, she thought that if she hadn’t let go of that piece of paper, her mother would still be here. Her paper with her happy stick family floated away, lost forever to her grasping fingers.

But those thoughts didn’t occur to her until she was older, much older. At the time, a strange man was hovering by her mother. As she came closer, her five-year-old self could see the empty sockets where the eyes should have been, the grinning face and what scared her most, the scythe that he carried in his bone-white hands. The scythe’s curved blade fit snugly around her mother’s slim waist. The man held chains in his hands, chains that ended in shackles on her mother’s wrists, ankles and throat. She pointed to them and asked her mother what they were used for. Her mother, taking it as a child’s figment of imagination, replied as such. But the man turned his empty eye sockets on her, taking notice of her for the first time. She waved at him. Her mother looked over her shoulder, trying to see who she was waving to. But besides a sudden chill, didn’t detect anything else. Her mother took her left hand and led her to the car, chatting happily. And that’s where the memory ended. They could have been walking forever to the car.

She focused again on her left hand. On it, was a scar. One that curved through her palm. Like the strange man’s scythe. A touch on her shoulder caused her to turn her head. A similar grinning face looked back at her. Attached to the face was a cloth-covered body and out of the body was the same bone-white hand, holding a scythe. In the other hand, was the same chains ending with the shackles in the same places. Looking back at her hand, she saw the grained wood handle of a scythe. Oh, that’s right. She was friends with the death gods. The reapers that took her mother’s soul when she died. But that doesn’t matter anymore. The reaper stood up, chains rattling. She stood up at well but her chains were empty. She needed to find someone and soon. As her friend faded away, she followed. The branch that she was sitting on rustled as if shaking off a pest. The boy next door shivered. Maybe he would be suitable.

Farewell, President Obama

Thank you for the eight years of your life that you spent for America. Thank you for taking care of us, for putting up with us and never losing faith in us. Most of all, thank for listening to us and keeping your head on your shoulders and never losing sight of the future. Thank you for standing strong for eight years. We will miss you being in the White House.

Lisbeth Salander is a little Devil

aaeaaqaaaaaaaabnaaaajdg1mtblzgq4ltqymjetndgzmy04m2m0ltc4ngjhn2vlztvlza
Something that gave even Lisbeth Salander trouble.

No Spoilers Ahead

I finished reading The Girl Who Played With Fire a couple of weeks ago. I really liked the book, but the big ham about women being underrated in their careers was focused on way too much (the same happened in The Fountainhead where the big ham was about how communism and conformity are the worst things ever and God help you if you support socialist ideas). In any case, after finishing the book, there was one thing that remained on the back of my mind. It was Fermat’s Theorem that was introduced early on in the book. I haven’t read the third book yet so I haven’t been given an answer by Lisbeth herself (if she gives an answer in the third book).

I was actually trying to figure it out. Since she said that Fermat’s Theorem was less about math and more about philosophy, then that means the answer isn’t supposed to be a supposed proof of the theorem but rather what it means in relation to the theme of the book. So I tried searching up the actual proof of the theorem and along the way found that there was a proof to the theorem (Wile’s proof) and that it was of no help to me. That was a dead end for me. So what did Lisbeth mean by it being philosophical?

Of course, Lisbeth would know very well what philosophical meaning there is behind something that people try to categorise and classify, but whatever name or condition they come up with to describe it, they just aren’t true and they don’t fit. Like Wile’s initial proof, people’s assumptions and expectations of her are often based on mistaken premises and false facts. Furthermore, since the theorem states that the formula Fermat came up with has no solutions, people trying to come up with a proof has to prove that there are, in fact, no solutions which means that they have to exhaust every means of finding a solution that solves the equation. Lisbeth, in all her peculiarity, has nothing of the conditions that her foster parents and her psychologists attribute to her, but they keep trying to cure her of the things that she doesn’t have. And like the theorem, Lisbeth is hard to understand and her behaviour is hard to prove and disprove and that means that once rumours establish themselves, her peculiar behaviour is hard to explain if one doesn’t know the context and that leads to much of her bad publicity in the book.

And that’s it. That’s why Stieg Larsson decided to include the Theorem in his books. To the people who published his story of Lisbeth Salander after his death, thank you for not including the answer to the question in the second book. I’ve had a bit of fun with this, but I did get frustrated when I didn’t know what Lisbeth meant while I was still reading the book (hence the title of this post). Only when I’ve had time to think things through weeks later did the answer come to me. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get my hands on the third book sometime this year and finish the series.

That’s all for this time. Read on!

To read more about Fermat’s Last Theorem, here is the Wiki page: Fermat’s Last Theorem

To read more about Wile’s proof, here is the Wiki page for that: Wile’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem

APUSH Unit III Essay Prep: Articles of Confederation to War of 1812 (circa 1770s-1800s)

d8f05a62283be3ce50475fb6df3719ba

So this is the first of the APUSH posts. I don’t have Unit I or II up because at the time, I didn’t do a lot of preparation for the first couple of units and what I did have was not sufficient for any sort of studying. Because of that, I’ll start with Unit III. I should also say that I won’t give you everything you need for each of these prompts because that’ll be no fun and it defeats the purpose of being an AP student. I’ll only give you the basic points and the synthesis and contextualization. Oh and any events I list may or may not be in chronological order, so be careful of that as well.

I was given these prompts, you might have gotten something different for Unit 3:

(1) “Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest; and it will be the duty of a wise government to avail itself of those passions, in order to make them subservient to the public good.” -Alexander Hamilton, 1787

How was this viewpoint manifested in Hamilton’s financial program as Secretary of the Treasury?

  • Synthesis: Second Bank of America (chartered in 1816 after the War of 1812 because they recognised the need to have a national banking system as well as a consistent national currency which is what they had trouble with during the War)
  • Contextualization: They needed to have the American people be loyal to the federal gov’t (and by extension, to the Constitution) as opposed to their local and state gov’ts and through the various aspects of Hamilton’s Financial Plan, tried to encourage nationalistic sentiments especially among the wealthy and affluent.
  • Points:
    • National Bank- Bank was made to be a corporation whose stocks could be purchased by third parties (turning private financial interest into national economic interest)
    • Funding Plan- plan to “fund” the national debt by a cycle of continuing to sell and pay off bonds
    • Assumption Plan- the federal gov’t would assume all state debts in exchange for moving the capital from the North to the Potomac
    • Basic Idea: If the citizens are personally invested in the country’s success, then these people will have more of an inclination to do things in the interest of the whole country as opposed to for themselves or for their state.

(2) Evaluate the relative importance of domestic and foreign affairs in shaping American politics in the 1790’s.

For this prompt, you need to state whether domestic or foreign affairs was more important in shaping American politics in the 1790s. I’ve listed what was happening in both categories. And depending on which one you thought was more important, the synthesis point I used may have to be tweaked.

  • Synthesis: Cold War- how foreign diplomatic failures overshadowed the later half of the 1900s after WWII, which should have been a relatively peaceful time, y’know, because all the major powers in the world needed to rebuild themselves economically, politically and especially in Germany, literally. Some relevant points would be McCarthyism and the Marshall Plan.
  • Contextualization: There’s a lot of things you can use here. For example, the French Revolution could count if you do it correctly.
  • Points:
    • Foreign Affairs:
      • French Revolution, Jay Treaty, US’s neutrality in foreign wars (GW’s Farewell Address), X, Y, Z Affair and the Convention of 1800 (end of Quasi-War with France)
    • Domestic:
      • Everything with Alex Hamilton and his Plan, strict v loose construction (Federalists vs Republicans), Whiskey Rebellion, Alien and Sedition Acts
    •  Politics:
      • George Washington(once again, his stance on US neutrality), Hamilton v Jefferson, Two Party System, Election of 1796 and the “Revolution”  of 1800

(3) To what extent was the election of 1800, sometimes known as the “Revolution of 1800”, a turning point in U.S. History?

  • Synthesis: Election of 1860, another election that had a monumental impact on US history otherwise known as when Lincoln became POTUS and when the Civil War starts
  • Contextualization: You could bring out how Jefferson’s ideas differed from the Federalists’ ideas and how this disagreement was a source of contention in the past.
  • Points:
    • Jefferson was the founder of the original Republican party (historians now call them Democratic-Republicans, but I’ll just keep it simple) and was the chief advocate for Republican ideals, in contrast to the first two presidents of the US who were Federalist (although GW wasn’t officially a Federalist, his tendency to agree with Hamilton meant that technically, he was one)
      • this obviously means that this is the first time there was a Republican president
      • this shift to Republican ideals means that the focus of the country was no longer at the national level but at the individual and state level
    • confirmed (in a way) the existence and legitimacy of a two-party system
    • the beginning of the downfall of the Federalist party
      • Judiciary Acts of 1801- changed courts with the intent to weaken Fed. party
    • reduced military budget and debt of the country
    • General Idea: How power transferred from the Federalists to the Republicans and what happened as the result

(4) Compare and contrast the contributions of two U.S. Presidents between 1788-1810 in helping to establish a stable government after the adoption of the Constitution. (GW, Adams, Jefferson)

  • Synthesis: You can use Lincoln again because he was the first Republican president(the third party system-> Democrats vs Republicans) and he obviously drastically changed the country and helped stabilise the country by, y’know, winning the Civil War
  • Contextualization: There were three presidents during that time; you need to compare and contrast two in your essay. Whichever one is left, you can use for contextualization. I chose to use Adams as contextualization and how he continued Washington’s policies etc etc.
  • Points: 
    • George Washington:
      • highly respected and people followed his example (he had a calming effect during the turbulent times, so to speak)
      • helped America stay neutral with Proc. of Neutrality and Jay Treaty
      • put down Whiskey Rebellion partially through his reputation alone
      • set precedents for future presidents (it rhymes!-almost)
        • had an ideologically diverse cabinet
        • showed the people that having presidents doesn’t necessarily mean having to live under tyranny
      • exerted his presidential powers underneath the Constitution
        • for example, by passing the Judiciary Act of 1789 (that made the judiciary system and the Supreme Court)
      • supported Hamilton’s plans and thus put the US on good financial footing
        • included assumption plan and the moving of the capital, shifting loyalties more towards the country as a whole
    • Thomas Jefferson:
      • Louisiana Purchase-encouraged an agrarian economy
        • guaranteed the people’s independence as per Jefferson’s Republican ideals
        • Lewis and Clark Expedition- encouraged western expansion
      • a more minor thing- he decentralised power by disestablishing state churches
      • showed that a peaceful transfer of power was possible and didn’t try to stamp out Federalist influences in the gov’t
      • accepted opposition against him (John Marshall), confirming checks and balances
      • another more minor thing- had success dealing with the Barbary pirates which expanded trade in the Mediterranean

(5) Analyse the impact of the American Revolution on both slavery and the status of women in the period 1775-1800.

  • Synthesis: Since the Civil War has been mentioned multiple times already, the next most obvious choice would be th 19th Amendments: when women got the right to vote
  • Contextualization: The First Great Awakening
  • Points:
    • Slaves:
      • anti-slavery sentiments were present before (for example, Quaker societies in 1775) but by 1792, even heavily pro-slavery places had anti-slavery sentiments like Virginia
        • side note: GW made it so that upon his wife’s death, all of his slaves were to be freed. Martha Washington set them free early.
      •  Lord Dunmore’s Proc (encouraging slaves to join British forces in return for freedom) caused slaves to rise against their masters, prompts Americans to offer freedom as well, tens of thousands later fled with the British
      • set ban date for the importation of slaves (1808)
      • NW Ordinance 1787 prohibits some territory from becoming slave states
      • BUT 3/5th Compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause and the fact that twenty years was allowed for the importation of slaves to stop
    • Women:
      • increased respect for their competence and rationality in managing family’s’ farms and businesses while men were away at war (Revolutionary War)
      • only legal gain-divorce was easier in some courts (to negligible effect)
      • social changes-wives were treated as more of a companion rather than as being treated as inferiors, some more freedom in choosing spouses, spinstership didn’t seem to be so bad anymore, women began to push for education (for example, Philadelphia’s Young Ladies Academy in 1787)
      • some female activists became famous for speaking out against the patriarchy; Abigail Adams and Judith Murray
      • Republican Mother, mothers seen as the passers of liberty and virtue onto their sons
      • BUT no real (tangible) progress in political power of females, traditional belief that women are subservient and weaker are still strongly held on to

(6) Evaluate the extent to which there was continuity in the conduct of United States foreign policy between 1789 and 1823.

  • Synthesis: US’s initial neutrality during WWI.
  • Context: Highlight what wars and foreign conflicts there were that could have affected America’s foreign policy and in particular, public opinion and by extension, the two-party system and the rise and fall of parties (like how the Federalist party lost favour because of the Hartford Convention).
  • Points:
    • George Washington remained neutral during his presidency (Proc of Neutrality and Farewell Address, later during the Napoleonic Wars and French Revolution)
      • Madison, Adams,  and Jefferson tried to remain neutral as well, but America ended up waging war with the British (War of 1812)
    • Attempts to use trade as a diplomatic weapon( not trading with either France or Britain). SPOILER: it doesn’t work.
    • GW renounced French-American Treaty and even had a Quasi-War with France (a break from previous good relationship with France, also seen with XYZ Affair and the aforementioned Quasi-War)
    • continued expansion (land grab) through Louisiana Purchase, Pinkney Treaty, Adams-Onis Treaty, Convention of 1818 (joint claim with Britain to Oregon Territory)
    • Continued limiting British influence (Jay’s Treaty, limited effects, Rush-Bagot Treaty) 
    • Continuity: War Hawks and how they wanted war with Britain, continued to use US commerce as diplomatic weapon (Macon’s Bill #2, Non-Intercourse Act, Embargo Act), Treaty of Ghent restored pre-war relationship with the British)
    • Monroe Doctrine (by Monroe and John Quincy Adams) warning against foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere

Moar Stuffs

I’m a huge bookworm and recently, due to circumstances out of my control, I haven’t been able to read as much as I’d like. But there are plenty of books I have read and from time to time, I’ll share some with you. There will be a link to my GoodReads page in the sidebar somewhere and if you’re a sci-fi, mystery and fantasy geek like me, you’ll enjoy the list I’ve compiled. Of course, the ones that I’ve marked with less than four stars isn’t recommended, but that is also up to you. I’ll also occasionally add quotes of the day as well. That’s all for this time and happy reading!

APUSH

Hey! So this year was my first year taking AP Classes. And I decided to take three at once… And one of them is APUSH (AP US History). Since I’ve had trouble finding information for essays and things, I’ve decided to upload synthesis and contextualization for each unit as well as any relevant points so that other people might have an easier time. I hope you guys find this helpful.

Abortion

Hello everybody! Hope you’ve all had a pleasant week so far. Today, I’m going to tackle the issue of abortion. My stance is generally pro-choice and I will explain why. To those who immediately felt a rush of animosity at my words, please restrain yourself from any unreasonable actions. To those who haven’t read the About page on this blog, please do. There are clear rules on this blog as to freedom of speech and I will not censor opposing opinions as long as there is logic to back it up. However, if any comments contain hate speech and/or argues points that I’ve already explained (seriously, please don’t be repetitive), I will delete them. Let’s start.

The main opponent to abortion, it seems, is the idea that it is equivalent to murdering a human being. That is not true. A person is considered irreversibly dead when their brain activity stops, therefore it stands to reason that a person is considered alive when their brain starts exhibiting regular signs of said activity or scientifically speaking, when electroencephalography (EEG) activity starts. That occurs at around 25 weeks, about halfway through the pregnancy. The definition of death is not disputed and so, will serve as a consistent marker in my argument. So that means that people who oppose abortion in all instances on moral grounds won’t be able to argue that the baby is veritably alive until at least halfway through the pregnancy. Therefore, abortion should be allowed at least during the first trimester.

To further expand on the first point, some of the same people who claim abortion shouldn’t be legal on moral grounds also say that the fetus has a “right to life”. If that is the case, then wouldn’t the mother also have the right to her body and her life? Remember, the mother is a fully-formed independent human being with thoughts and dreams and instead, the greater consideration is given to a bundle of cells that is in no way able to live outside the mother’s body and thus far doesn’t have any sort of human thought or personality. Having a “right to life” ultimately means being able to choose for yourself so there is no reason why the mother can’t choose to not have the baby, especially if having the baby means that the mother’s life is threatened.

Another anti-abortion argument is that abortion removes the consequences to having sex. Some people are afraid that if you were able to just get an abortion if you get pregnant, then unmarried people would have sex willy-nilly and the country’s morality would degenerate. Their argument basically says that if you have sex, then you know you risk getting pregnant. Thus, if you do get pregnant, then the responsible thing to do is to have the baby. While I can’t argue for the decision-making skills in teens, I can safely say that having a baby at that time of their life is disastrous. But it’s not only the teen mom’s life that will be ruined, the baby will also be born in subpar conditions and will probably live like that for the rest of their lives. (Fun Fact: For all of America’s reputation as a country of opportunity, the percentage of people who actually move up in life is 4% and that’s not taking into account exactly how much they’ve moved “up”.) This doesn’t apply to just teenagers though; teenagers just happened to be the most understandable scenario. In that case, the more responsible thing, I’d say, is to abort.

That said, having an abortion isn’t an easy thing. Having a procedure isn’t cheap and it requires a certain degree of desperation on the part of the mother. Going through abortion is not only a financial problem but also emotionally taxing.

You could also say that the woman can use contraception to avoid pregnancies, but contraception isn’t effective 100% of the time and even then, you have to assume that the option of contraception is available. Also, Sex Ed. isn’t taught in all schools in the USA either, meaning there is a serious lack of information about such things in the areas of the US that are most affected by unplanned pregnancies. And to those few that say a woman’s body is capable of shutting down a pregnancy if the woman really didn’t want to get pregnant, then you’re probably dumb or drunk or both.

In reality, the underlying argument in the question of abortion is about women’s rights. Does a woman have the right to choose? Does the woman have to sacrifice her goals and dreams and part of her life to take care of an unwanted baby? However, there is one crucial question that is missing, is the man responsible for the baby too? If the man were to be held accountable, then would the same arguments be put forward against abortion?

I won’t say anything about abortion in cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in serious danger because there are clear reasons why abortion in those cases is the best thing to do.

That’s all for this time. Thank you for reading this rather long post. ^_^ Please leave your thoughts and comments below. There are a lot of aspects to this debate that I didn’t cover so I’ll be counting on you guys to help fill in. Remember to back up your arguments!

Relativity

This is something that everyone can relate to. Simply put, what I mean by relativity is perspective. Your perspective and the perspective of your interlocutor, the context of the situation and possible hidden factors not apparent to the other person.

For example, my mother might be complaining that her parents keep telling her that my uncle has made an “appointment” to Facetime them. Thus, she complains, whenever she wants to talk to her parents, she has to keep in mind the time when my uncle is going to call so that the two calls don’t interrupt each other. By saying this, she implies that her parents are favouring my uncle because they specifically set aside time to talk to him while if my mum wants to talk to her parents, she will have to first make sure she doesn’t call when my uncle is calling. The example is a bit complicated to explain, but that is the case in a lot of interpersonal interactions. However, if you don’t understand the gist of it, please ask.

Now onto the perspective part of the example. My mum’s perspective is quite clear: her parents are prioritising her brother’s calls over her’s. Now here comes the hidden factors. My uncle works long hours each day and therefore means that he cannot call his parents whenever he wants. My grandparents live on the other side of the planet meaning nighttime here is daytime there. My grandparents must also be home and not busy in order to Facetime. There is an inference to be made here: if my uncle wants to make a call to my grandparents, he will have to find a time that fits both him and his parents, ergo an “appointment”.

Meanwhile, my mum is a stay-at-home mother so that means she can call my grandparents whenever she thinks they’re free and whenever she has spare time; a much larger time window than what my uncle has. So of course, her brother’s calls do take precedence to her calls, but the context of the situation and the reason as to why my uncle’s calls take precedence is also different. Therefore, it is not that my grandparents favour my uncle, it is the demand of my uncle’s situation.

Now, in this situation, if my mum was an intensely jealous person or somesuch, there would be a confrontation and other things may follow. Even to a more balanced person, the idea of their parents favouring one of their siblings is unpleasant and can lead to resentment etc. So these sort of small misunderstandings can actually have quite a large impact and that is also why people should, in these situations, resist the urge to react emotionally and instead think logically as to give the truth a chance and avoid any future unpleasantness.

What do you guys think? Do you have any examples from your life? If you have any ideas for future discussions, please feel free to e-mail me at terror6586@gmail.com and fill in the subject space with Outlet.