People change, but friends do to. They say true friends stick together and look out for each other. However, popular advice is if you are irritated with your friends, ignore them and eventually find new ones.
Intervene-r:
This friend looks out for your interests. Rather than change themselves, they want to change you. Say both of you guys were good students with no criminal records. Then one day you start smoking pot which escalates to shooting up on heroin. You start tattooing yourself and get really depressed. The intervene-r will shake you up and get you into therapy. They will visit you regularly as you detox. They are with you during the thick and thin. On the down side, you can't easily get rid of this friend. They choose to change you, not you change them.
Concede-r: In the same situation, they will accept that you have changed and will not intervene. They follow internet advice. If you are annoyed, find new friends. Don't stick with your annoyances. They are the people who look out for themselves, but realize you probably do/should do the same. Thought line:You guys are friends for laughs, not for the sake of butting into each other's business. If you do drugs, it's your business not theirs.
I know I have anger management issues, so I signed myself up for therapy. I've had one session so far, but I have my doubts on its effectiveness. It's not like teaching mindfulness. My psychologist just asks questions. The whole healing process, according to her, is just getting it all out there, but I have a problem with that. I have told my friends, her, and you (if you continue to read about it) about my gripe with this fucking old bastard (neighbor kinda), but rather than eradicate his existence from my mind, expressing my thoughts put him at the top of my consciousness priority list. Also, this psychologist's suggestion of a solution was to simply try avoid the annoyance. There was no attempt at either seeing this as a problem with myself and there was no stress reducing solution. Lastly, if the old man left, and another annoyance came in, given her suggestions, I should leave the building. Basically I am taught avoidance tactics in therapy.
Arguments, from what I've read, spring as fearful reactions to perceived threats and from the arguer's sense of arrogance. Funny.. fear and arrogance. I know for a fact that he fears me, but I am irritated by the fact that he still maintains his arrogance. I know I am right, but does that make me arrogant? But I also know I am wrong about a few things. I quickly admitted that I misused something, and that I will take care of it right away. He should've left then with "problem solved" in his mind, but he didn't because he hates me. If there is no reason to be near your annoyance, then there is only feeling. I know for a fact that what he says is factually wrong. Some of this factually wrong information comes from persisting with two opposing pieces of information during the two times I have confronted him throughout the entire confrontation. First, he blows up a situation with all the little details he criticizes me for. Then, when I address all the little details he talked about, he says "all I wanted was..." To add to my irritation, the first day he said he pays me and mentioned sanitary issues which were in a contract he signed. I signed no contract and I am not his leaser and at the the time, I had no idea why he was mentioning something to me. Something I could not respond to, because I simply didn't know about it. When I addressed the contract (on the second day/confrontation) and legal issues after reading about it, he says that he was only asking me out of "common courtesy" and that he didn't mention the law at any time . I said "you mentioned money and contract. This = law/agreement." He said "I know the law, and I was asking you out of decency." However, if this old man really knew the law, then how can he simply change what he said on the second day I confronted him ? How can you keep this arrogant douchebag (redundant I know) to his word?
My feeling is like the frustration Einstein might feel while arguing with the average male. A man is stereotypically more logical than a female. He would say all his facts in front of Einstein (without knowing who he is), and Einstein would reply logically. Einstein's opposing statements would directly relate to the issues presented by that average man. The man would reply as logically as he can back. For whatever the man does not understand (of what Einstein said), the man would reply with whatever ridiculous "fact" that he can come up with (if he be douchebaggy) without checking the validity of what he said. In order to "win" (seem more valid), the man would raise his voice when replying to Einstein.
I know I can't do anything for revenge no matter how sweet it would feel. I suppose I can find a way to publically shame him, but doing so will probably just give him more publicity (like it did Fox) especially when he fronts an ironic organization supporting a culture that has no listed or easily perceived correspondent or leadership of that culture (like an all white board supporting Nigerian dance) . Also, publically shaming has the possibility of looking like defamation to the law when I am really just exercising free speech. Revenge can also look bad on me, and as consequence I might lose the respect of my friends and the people I work with. But I can't live without any sort of release. I need to find a way just as many recent jailed gunman need a way to completely forget about their annoyance while they are being annoyed and throughout life (to prevent stress buildup) that is neither bottling up anger nor having miniature explosions every time I am mad. I realize when a person is mad it has to show. Otherwise it's as though "mad" was never programmed into him. Whatever has made him "mad" has to be made better. I was searching for "kindness begets kindness" and channeling negative energy into creativity, but after trying to be kind to my neighbor, he goes ahead and complains to his leaser on a list of things that he's been keeping tabs on for a long while.
I honestly can say, I am not hoping for the best for him. I am hoping his organization dies. His organization was never beneficial to society in the first place. I know he didn't do anything heinous, but I am so irritated by the way he thinks. He is the epitome of "first world problems" which he complains about with his sense of entitlement. The only thing I see him contribute to this world is a sense of arrogance. I think he is a waste of space, and I say this because he is so easily replaceable.
Sexism is one thing male chauvinists have in common with the Church. Sure everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is a matter of ideology not just the idea that Churchgoers and atheists are both people. If in death, both men and women are equal in the face of oblivion and if people never had the choice to choose to be a man or a woman, then people are alike all over. I bring this point for sexist atheists (aka the amazingatheist on youtube), not all atheists. While I do agree with some things he says, I do not agree that "physical" differences/processes such as menstruation makes a women any less capable then a man in the work force. I also do not agree that you can generalize feminism in such a narrow way to mean "man-hating." This is by no means true, and it is by the amazing atheist's mouth that influences others to generalize groups. (i.e. American's are loud and obnoxious). Really, it is only the loud and obnoxious ones you hear about.
One thing that organized religions (particularly Christianity) does is provide information on some passages, then leave it closed for comments or ratings. Only "thumbs up" are allowed thereby going against the philosophy of the first amendment, the market place of ideas. By not allowing articles to be evaluated, they are are narrowing their thoughts for other possibilities such as allowing women to be pastors.
http://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders
I was looking at the above in particular. Matt Slick claims
"There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at
preaching and teaching than many men However, it isn't gifting that is
the issue, but God's order and calling."
This implies that a man can have a calling, but no skill at preaching and still preach. A woman can be a prophet and having preaching skills, but will never have a calling. God calls no women for the job of preaching. But what is a "calling." Is it a voice inside a person's head, an urging? If it is as I say, then what validates a man's calling over a woman's?
I looked for an inherent quality of men over women that allowed only men to be pastors. I found none. The fact of the matter is, a vast majority of us are afraid of public speaking. A man can be tall, but then he'll have to be taller than other men to have a voice over other men. The fact of the matter is, the inherent quality of a pastor cannot by any means be a quality of gender, because assuming men are the more charismatic gender, that man will have to speak above other charismatic men. Also, we obviously know there are charismatic women and quiet men in this world.
Matt Slick claims that man was created first. First of all, the premise of entire idea of Adam and Eve is creationist. There's no evolutionary "Lucy" there, nor is there an assumption life could exist beyond Earth and Adam and Eve. Also, by mentioning the bible's Adam and Eve, Matt Slick abandons any claims for science, and therefore, any piece of information he takes from published empirical results should be scrutinized, assumed to have come from a particular agenda / biased, or his word abandoned all together. Also, another problem with mentioning chronology is that animals were created before humans. By Slick's reasoning, that would put animals above man as being more qualified than man to be pastors. Why then do Christians eat meat thereby killing God's creatures? Why would the chronology of man before woman only matter for the creation of humans and not all things?
Matt then says regarding female pastors: "are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?" In my opinion it is a desire. God is a desire for the mental stability of man, so male pastors also preach for their own desires. Everything a person does is inherently selfish anyways. Also, Matt Slick should also definitely answer to why he can say this when a lot of male pastors all say vastly different and possibly contradicting (gay churches) things in different churches and lead very different religions all across the world. He must answer if his goal as a believer is to help and not abandon non believers, and for the sake of his credibility.
I'll admit the article is well documented and logical in that it does follow a source called the bible. The problem is translation, interpretation, and the ideological contradictions it has with a ideologically changing society today. I won't agree with many Church leaders when many more women attend church than men do: http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/ . Possible solutions are to demand a legit reason for sexism in church or to abandon the church entirely. We cannot ask a church to change their doctrine because an opinion is an opinion protected by the first amendment, and here in America, we have freedom of religion.
I know he probably regrets this. But without repercussions, a kid won't learn how to behave no matter how good and pure his ideas are and if he did learn, then he's just gonna have to live with his mistakes. In order to be effective he has to be logical, and stop using words like "stupid", "bad", "good", and any word that is overly connotated in one direction or another. It's because of Veggie reps like him (and PETA), that people'll turn away from try it.
Here's what I disagree with:
He doesn't murder anything, but he murders ants on the ground, the costs of animals to raise a society such as ours. As a society hazard, he causes people to want to hurt other things. He's the pinnacle of violence that perpetuates violence.
"God" is faith. Onision wants meat eaters to murder themselves, but this is against their own religion. Religion can't justify anything, yet some religions sacrifice animals. The whole purpose of his argument is to save animals. This isn't happening, so Onision doesn't believe in freedom of religion. He believes everyone should make the following lifestyle choices: vegetarianism and atheism.
Also, a person can like certain animals and dislike other animals and not care for other animals. Are we not animals? A person who eats can like another person in society. Therefore a person can like animals. If you mean other animals. This is still possible. Some hate sharks and spiders, but they like bunnies and dogs. The meat eater who likes bunnies and dogs and cats and birds, but don't eat any of them are just generalizing their love for animals on specific types.
The beings who kill other beings is not even a directly related argument to the comment he is referring to. Just because I like eating meat, doesn't mean I like eating humans. Some species of animals eat their own types, but there are carnivorous animals that don't eat their own kind. Dogs don't eat their own kind, but they still eat meat.
Onision doesn't feel sorry for meat eaters losing an arm or maybe even being murdered. Any remorse for shootings or bombings are gone from his empathy. I think this is just something he said in rage. Can we really take this seriously? If we can't, then can we take his other videos seriously? I don't think so. If he will refute every little idea that disagrees with him, also say he changed his mind in another video, and say "Do you think I really meant that?" then how can we trust his words? How can we as viewers hold him to his words and ideas? The answer is: we just can't! He says things expecting the viewer to take everything he says conditionally without warning the viewer.
Religion doesn't make a point pointless in the topic of vegetarianism because religion is a culturally/ socially implemented thing, and often times it connects to the consumption or murdering of animals. Asking a person rudely to change on one issue is asking them to change on another sometimes.
Vegetarianism also comes with health risks for those who start off. It is not easy and it can be pricey to make this lifestyle change. Initial change will mean limited choices on menus and at parties. Eager beavers will approach vegetarianism without caution--unbalanced. Then, newbie vegetarians will have to get rid of preexisting meat: presumably by throwing it away, and E.B. White said wasting food is a sin.
It is an opinion. It really is. Some vegetarians don't eat meat simply because they don't like it. Their intentions just have a moral consequence of saving animals and does not make them any more saintly than the meat eater.
Depends are you deterministic? The cost of food is expensive. Some people who were born poor and are subject to injustices of society ended up poor for life. How can you expect them to buy fresh vegetables instead of fast food?
Also, why deprive people of a pleasure in life? According to adults it is the second most thing that gives them pleasure. Meat is being a type of food with its own flavor is a type of pleasure. So are drugs, yes, but eating meat is less self destructive and less addictive. Also, you can't compare eating meat to drugs because meat eating isn't as excessive when compared to addictively taking drugs.
"People can eat meat if they like eating meat."-- in addition to what is above, the rebuttal comment from Onision is not a good analogy because eating (cow, chicken, other bird) meats doesn't harm other humans. Rape and Cannibalism does. Within a human society eating non-humans is benign compared to those things.
The alternative to walking around: The commenter was justified. Why? --because Onision makes his claim for the animals which are "dumber" than people. Nothing should also justify killing that bugs are also "dumber" than people. Asians eat bugs as a snack. This I simply don't know. According to Onision are bugs allowed to be eaten while vegetarian? If no, his statement crumbles to the ground. If yes, his statement lives: there is no alternative to walking on the ground because bugs aren't animals. Although, if he says, "yes", I won't agree because I think bugs are animals.
Onision must also not be for cutting down trees. How can he live in a civilization that depends on trees, water, oil, and other resources from nature. Cutting down the nature cuts down on the homes of animals and creates pollution. Living in civilization and thereby creating this demand for our own selfish needs indirectly murders animals either way.
Then midway he says "meat eaters for pleasure." Damn-it. He should've said this earlier, so that all this tirade can be specified. He targets pleasure seekers directly. This means religiously eating meat and sacrificing meat is okay with him. This means that eating meat because you are poor is okay.
It is true though. I have a garden and the food keeps on growing and growing back. However, the food growth rate is slow. My mother's water bill was skyrocketed to the point where the water board called her regarding it. In the end, we had to kill off the garden. Having a garden is expensive. A community wide change is needed for a wide scale conversion to vegetarianism. Also, there will have to be more farmers. A community wide farm is needed for cheaper food. This IS ideal. Here, I presented a solution and a deeper problem whereas Onision did not.
Onision assumed everyone has angry and murderous thoughts as they eat their chicken noodle soup. That's excessive.
They are opinions. "Go fuck yourself" ,"Murder", "complain" instead of "said"
They are not facts. Vegetarianism is a "good" idea. It saves animals. What makes you think "saving" animals is a good thing. What logic gives humans the obligation to save animals?
Over the years the viewers continue to question the validity of his statements. AND WHY NOT? Freedom of speech allows you and me to have an opinion. Youtube is a medium of opinion through comments and videos. The market place of ideas is a fundamental philosophical basis of the 1st amendment that calls for the survival of the idea that survived rebuttals. Complaining and whining is also protected and cannot be stopped. Also, they might not even be intended as complaints. It is Onision that perceives the complaints.
I commented on one video without watching others, but why not? A video is a stand-alone piece of media. If it connects to something, then it should simply be longer. Otherwise it should be listed as an episode.
Also, eating meat is unhealthy, but it is not extremely unhealthy. Drinking and driving, drugs, war, sugary things, and raping are worse things to do.
Also, if you truly disagree then do what he told you:
Just press pause.
And unsubscribe.
Here's a way better argument:
Oh yeah. I think I'll write on feminism next week.
" to advance women's equality, non-violence, economic development
empowerment of women and girls in all sectors of society.
reproductive rights and access to reproductive technology"
Principles
"promotes equality between women and men and girls and boys
supports safe contraception/ planning/ Medicaid funding and access for minors.
dedicated to achieving civil rights for all people/ people of color.
supports LGBT
no discrimination of any kind.
no more violence in world.
preservation of the environment.
pay equity, and the end of sweatshops. "
what is the third wave of feminism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
Focus is basically to bring feminism to other cultural groups, religions, races.
maternity leave and motherhood
rape.
derogatory terms
in my opinion: women's representation in media
pro-choice. and birth control.
some international work for women's rights.
What actions have been taken. (list of various actions)
Scholarships, conferencing on empowerment and issues, slut walk, probably some lobbying. Individuals supporting specific issues like Sandra fluke, Roe vs. Wade, killing us softly (video), and women's publications: magazines and books.
------ This is intended to be non-biased information. Just the facts of what a group claims. My opinion will be in a second or third post. This is just so readers and writer can both be informed. I actually know the publication magazines, books, yahoo answers responses, roe vs wade, killing us softly, other women's publications, and the slut walk. I also know about the women in physics conference which may not be directly tied to the feminist groups (not exactly sure). (But I don't know about feminist conferences which may kill any of my arguments if you will kindly cite them for any argument in my next post. I also know about dissenting opinions and injustices against men specifically on youtube and on yahoo answers. I also didn't read too much into LGBT, but have heard the opinions of a LGBT community in real life and online. If I'm not lazy I'll write a second post just for information on LGBT rights. I'll also try look more into injustices in male rights because they obviously exist especially when it comes to jail time, their stereotypes as subpar parents and emotionless robots, and family courts. If you have good sites, i would like to know them. :)
I wasn't an avid reader when I was a kid, nor am I currently majoring in literature. However, I know what I think is good story writing, and there might be more to be included on this list than I put here. Mention it if you think I am missing something, and I'll add your username and comment if I agree, else I might comment why.
Consistency: In other words, what ever causes you wrote about should be followed by an effect. If your character loves art and teaches, he will teach art and not science, unless there is a good reason why he doesn't. Such as: there was just no opening as an art teacher or that he secretly loved science. I often find that inconsistencies are the biggest problem with stories. I saw a story on the web in which a girl ends up in a new world in another dimension, but instead of screaming out of fear, she is somehow automatically enrolled in high school there and continues her life as though nothing happened. It makes perfect sense to the writer, but not to the reader. Consistency is for the sake of the reader because the writer knows all the details.
Good grammar and spelling: Honestly, not the most important aspect in my opinion as you could have inferred from my writing. However, "good enough" grammar and spelling should not distract the reader from understanding the story, and "perfect" grammar is left for publishing and final drafts. Starting a sentence with "but" or "and" in story writing isn't a big problem. Also, not putting ", said..." after each "" is unnecessary as long as it is formatted correctly to reduce confusion. Purposefully incorrect grammar and run-ons are not bad!!! This is a huge criticism given by others that I don't think is entirely wrong. Run-ons are common in "high" literature, and they may be used to slow down the pace of the story. I've seen short sentences often used to quicken the pace. All in all, grammar and spelling is last to be checked.
No unnecessary information: Don't introduce a character and not use him/her. If you are going to go through all the trouble of describing the best friend of your main character then use her extensively either in the plot or to prove a point.
For example: Missy Ariety, a charming young and slender hot women with double Ds, is so very cloistered throughout the day in her rigidly white, long lab coat. Why she does it? I don't know. But I know I will soon find out.
I selectively described her. Her personality was not initially important and was rather for the development of the plot.
A culmination: Every detail you mention must lead to something that has to be resolved or leads to some "A-HA!" moment.
In other words, it was because Heathcliff was introduced to Wuthering Heights, we could understand (through the story that unfolds thereafter) the themes. By his love for Catherine and all the hatred he brought upon the Lintons and the Earnshaws he was able to show the "destructiveness of love." By his gypsyish innate difference from that of the Lintons and his marriage to Isabella, Emily Bronte (the author) was able to show the "precariousness of the upper class." - spark notes.
It was also because of knowing the two wicked sisters of cinderella, that we are to appreciate her end in marriage to a handsome, rich prince. Don't you think that the story, Cinderella, would lose its meaning if she came from a wealthy family from another kingdom? Cynically, it will mean that rich men marry only rich women. The real story benefited by the fact that Cinderella did all the chores and was always good and kind. Good karma was built and carried on from the beginning of her story.
Less obvious matters, some are a matter of taste...
Realism: This just makes a story relatable. The alien virtue may be based on bloodshed and war, but those are not the basis of our virtues. Philosophically, there is no good or bad in this world, but the author might have to choose what is good and what is bad. It is realistic to say that stealing is bad for human society. Choosing to go against realism must be for some good reason, and conveying an idea through literature is best done in a realistic setting. Choosing to be an alien for entertainment purposes is nice, but a reader will probably not want to think so hard remembering a huge list of contrary thoughts this alien race believes in, or the wildly different setting he lives in.
Flatland by Edwin Abbott: A 2-D world in which people are 2-D shapes identified by their sides. As farfetched as it seems, the world still has tree, weather, trade, different types of people, towns, and houses. This is our connection to reality.
Not too much angst: if you want to appeal to the adult population. Why? because the adult population is less hormonal than the teen population. Incredible situations of kids who rose out of the absolute worst possible shit hole, is unbelievable. It is hard enough to get out of poverty. Some may not understand the situation itself, but writing about real life experiences (such as being in poverty) adds to the realism of a story. Also, stories such as those are more within human understanding and empathy than a story about a kid who had all 5 step dads shoot themselves in the head while living in poverty with no clothes in his past, accidentally shoot himself in the leg, find his long lost mother after fending off some beasts, and find himself leader of a huge resistance group. No No NONONO! The reader will ask you to stop bullshitting him. Otherwise, make everything including the setting unbelievable. It's called magical realism, and it works successfully in "Like Water for Chocolate" by Laura Esquivel.
Details: make a story believable. In fact, this is what Flatland depends on to make the story entertaining. Read it to understand how Abbott (the author) adds a bunch of details to visualize humans in 2-D. Details allow the reader to more willingly suspend her belief, because the less believable your world is, the more bullshit like your story becomes. It should also be a well known fact that an argument's (likewise an idea's believability) success rate increases with the amount of detail given, and from my experience, repeating relevant details helps make an idea more convincing too.
Interaction: A lack of this make a lot of college movie projects seems lonely. Interactions aren't wholly necessary, but are probably important for entertainment based stories. Sure, a story has an overall style, but interactions (especially with an antagonist who has opposing views and mannerisms) can enhance the fairness of the actions of the protagonist. Interactions also help enhance a story's style and help prove a point i.e. a community of very different people working on a project together.
Case in point: JUNO: Vanessa Loring played by Jennifer Garner lived in a house in which everything was in place. She was OCD, and controlling so far as to call her husband, Mark Loring (Jason Bateman) immature for playing the electric guitar. She was a foil to Juno who was immature and irresponsible (already pre-go).
When I watched Juno, I assigned a "negative" feeling to Vanessa Loring for being overbearingly OCD and assertive of her opinion over Mark Loring.
I don't mean your actual life's story. What I mean is a story that you carry on in your mind that you always go back to and try to continue or relive. Sometimes it appears in dreams and sometimes you think of it as your second life. It isn't the same as watching a movie and thinking about what you would do in the situations presented by the movie. It's just different. It's personal.
Well... I have a story, and in all my life, I have never ever told anyone this story, but I have written it everywhere in my journals. It has no literary value, and maybe not even any entertainment value, just a preoccupation value for myself like the sea is to E.B. White.
Like thoughts it never ends,
Like ghosts it never is,
Like words it has no meaning
So if you do have a story what is it?
or are you unable to tell me the nature of your story?
Potential: some but limited, we already know the future because this story takes place right before SAC therefore we know that Motoko, chief Aramaki, Togusa, and Batou among some others have survived.
Logical follow up: Some what not. Arise takes place in 2027. 3 years later is SAC. How does Motoko's body change so suddenly from 18 to 30. Motoko's body in SAC is a 30 year olds from a woman's perspective.
Art style: Beautiful, engaging, the only A++. Doesn't detract from the story, enhances the realism of the story.
Character design: Could be better. When I first saw this poster, I thought it was going to suck. Sometimes you look at a person when they are younger and know how they will look when they are older. Production I.G. could have made Motoko look like any one else and still fit the story line so long as its cyber body is still developing, but if you are going to make the character look somewhat similar to the original character design, don't make the eyebrows so goddam different.
Other: My overall impression of this up and coming animation is that is will be better than stale Hayashi Miyazaki works with boring stories and similar character designs throughout his career. Normally a movie that builds upon a pre-existing series, kills the franchise at least because it is "unauthentic" and therefore "isn't how it is supposed to be," but I think this movie will be entertaining if you separate the ideas of the movie from the animation series. Make this movie "stand alone." Also, the new 009 movie looks even more disappointing, and although Evangelion 1.0 and 2.0 were good, Evangelion 3.0 was a major downer for me.
In Conclusion:
Lower your expectations, and give this movie a chance. What do you think about it?
So... My first "work in progress" was shit. so I just reworked the entire thing.
looking back:
I waited for the next bus back home, when some old, banged-up SUV stopped right in front of me. The person at shot gun stuck his head out of the car and looked around to see if anyone else was around. And nobody was, so he pulled his pistol out from his oversized gray jacket, and surreptitiously aimed it at me. My heart jump 50 beats. The world in my head disappeared to focus on my hyper-activated senses.
He said something I couldn't hear too well. But his hand motioned for me to come closer. So I did by 2 steps until I realized that he wanted me to get into the car. Instead of continuing forward, I stepped back with my eyes still fixed on the gun. I half-rasped/asked, "why?"
"Your not in a position to ask why. Come here."
I remembered the broken record method in a conversation workshop I was forced to take which dictates to only say:
"no."
"If you don't come I might have to shoot you."
and to continue to say only:
"no."
"I'll give you 10 seconds."
"1"
"no"
"2"
"no"
"3" His voice got harsher.
"no"
4..5..6...7...8..9... Each time I took a step back, and each time my voice grew shakier.
"10"
"no... no... please no...!"
A miniature shockwave reverberated through the air around the bullet.
I was unfortunate to discover that his threats weren't empty. Because the next thing I knew, I fell to the ground feeling only physical pain, and fainting shortly afterwards before I could grasp what resulted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...if anyone else was around. And nobody was..." I wanted the reader to get the sense that the nobody was the person narrating the story at the same time I wanted the reader to know that "I" was alone.
Also, the "I" was intended to be some male so that it didn't look like the guy holding the gun was looking to rape.
I knew almost immediately after watching the first episode of Hunter x Hunter (2011) that this was とがし -先生's (togashi-sensei's) work. Why? Because of these similarities...
Kuwabara, Kurama, Hiei, Yusuke
Killua, Leorio, Kurapika, and Gon (in the middle)
Here are the obvious points, Yu Yu Hakusho and Hunter x Hunter have repeated names. 幽☆遊☆白書 means "ghost files" at least according to Wikipedia. ハンターXハンター is in katakana so it has to be obvious to the English speaker. Hunter is someone who hunts for something.
Another obvious thing to point out is that the main protagonists of the two shows are 4 male protagonists. Both sets of characters have their recognizable equal in the other manga. In fact a lot of the Yu Yu Hakusho characters are repeated in Hunter x Hunter. Kurama is a lot like Kurapika. Killua would be Yu Yu Hakusho's Hiei. Leorio would be Kuwabara, and Gon is like Yusuke.
Of course- all art credit goes to Togashi せんせい
art style
Gon-Hunter x Hunter
Motherless in the manga
He's like the cutest younger brother of Yusuke Urameshi and youngest son of Ging.
Yusuke Urameshi- Yu Yu Hakusho
Fatherless in the manga
Looks related to the Freecss family. Like Ging's delinquent older son.
Ging Freecss
Father to the main characters of Yu Yu Hakusho and Hunter x Hunter
Togashi, after running out of ideas probably, just made the main characters look the same. If you didn't know that Yu Yu Hakusho and Hunter x Hunter were made by the same person, an analysis of the art style could hint towards a similar authorship. All have slightly rounded eyes. Urameshi's age is in the middle of Ging and Gon. Putting his picture in the middle, it is possible to see that the eyes grow slanter as the character ages. Smaller eyes are sort of like adult markers in manga. Gon's eyes are big and naive looking that suits his character and the story of a kid who learns about the world as he searches for his father, Ging Freecss.
ART CREDIT： とがし先生 と MADHOUSE と 日本 ANIMATION と STUDIO ぴえろ
There are so many more similarities between the two anime /manga, however I will leave that for a later date. This is only part I that mention some obviously similar aspects.
I beg you not hinder your child's interests. Success comes at the price of lack of skill in something unimportant unless of course: you want your child to be a goody-goody student/future politician.
Case in point: I had Cs in my English class up until 6th grade when I got intensely tutored for it to get into other schools and eventually college (sat tutoring). FUCK THAT!!! Speaking especially if you want to be a PhD (non-medical), it is more important to be good at one thing than to be a jack of all trades. The thing that counts most for your undergraduate GPA is your major. Your major , especially if it is math-based, depends on skill and interest developed in your past. By the time a kid is in college, if that kid majors in math, he will barely take English classes and grad school won't care so much about his English grades. Heck, you can go into a fancy colleges with amazing MAJOR RELATED GPA and a lowered cumulative GPA. And a good undergrad college might accept you for your talent in one subject anyways.
a person's memory and lives are finite. Proven through biology, chemistry, other sciences. I guess it depends on a person's belief as to whether you'll take this truth. Some people may believe memories are intangibly separate from the brain and human consciousness like ideas just exist but may or may not be forever. Also, some people may believe in eternal souls and maybe eternal memories attached to that idea. Also assume that complete knowledge, "the truth", is only achieved by reading all books ever published no matter how stupid.
1) It takes 72 hours to read the bible straight through.
2) There are 774,746 words in the bible.
3) That is about 10760 words per hour. (774746/72)
4) There is an average of 80,000 words in a book.
5)There are 129,864,880 books that have been published in all of modern history according to Google's algorithms. but there will always be more books published as we are still conscious- this future fact alone discounts ever knowing "the truth."
6)Let's say knowledge consists of the complete knowledge of all books (even though web opinion is very important, books are easier / sufficient to make a point).
7) That makes 120864880*80000 words to know "the truth" as of August 10, 2010 when this article: http://mashable.com/2010/08/05/number-of-books-in-the-world/ was published.
# 0f words: 1.038919e+13
Rad
Deg
x!
Inv
sin
ln
π
cos
log
e
tan
√
Ans
EXP
xy
(
)
%
AC
7
8
9
÷
4
5
6
×
1
2
3
-
0
.
=
+
8) divide this number by 10760 words per hour, and you will obtain how many hours you have to live. 965538141.264 hours
9) To make this number more digestible convert it to years.
*Also note, that these approximations/numbers are not taken as absolute. There will always be an error approximation.
Doing these set of calculations, the conclusion is that you'll have to live 110221.249 years. Even if you memory was limitless, your lifespan will cut you off from knowing "the truth" unless you were continually cryogenically regenerated every so often, so that you live for 110221.249 years. But after that, and after reading the books published during the time you were asleep, you will still find something you don't know when you move to the internet pages.
Oh yeah I forgot to take into account, the existence of other intelligent beings and the existence of their texts.
Semi-Philosophically proven:
I want to casually call our finiteness as our problem with infinite regression.
If we wanted to know everything about a given situation, we would have to know the depths and details of everything in that situation. This is the problem about a detective's job: truth is impossible to achieve. Because if it was achieved, every point in this system known as "the universe" would have to be known in all dimensions, and all these points must count for significant fluctuations that brought us here to this point (which makes me question truth in computer modeling). In a sense the true goal of science is to know "the truth," but those of us in science take this "playfully" and "lightly" thinking realistically, that this will never happen (at least not within the lifetime of this author). Most of us in science, are in it for the fun of grappling with the unknown. (I digress, damn it). A detective must know why the killer killed his victim, the psychology behind it, the probably of the killer's condition, the means that he took to kill the victim, illness that the victim might've had, the statistics of the victim's death being a freak accident, and the details behind it in order to know for sure who did it. But in a sense, a detective job is to make inferences based on not knowing everything. A detective's role comes with an error statistic because he doesn't have the universe in his head.
