I' m not sure how they went from A to B. When you see a lightning bolt in the distance the sound of that event is delayed, you hear it after you see it because photons are quicker than sound, but just because you can "hear it back" doesn' t change the fact that the lightning bolt is long gone. "Looking back" exploits the same principle, it' s just applied to photons instead of sound (for instance when you look at the sun what you actually see is the sun as it was 8 min ago). I guess photons and sounds do travel forward in time, if you want to play with words, but I' m not impressed : I can do that shit too. ^^
It' s not that he had to be, it' s that it' s wasn' t shameful to him in the slightest. He was raised by his gramps, completely removed from society and its etiquette. The manga often used his naiveté to add a social critique subtext, especially the first books. Although his monkey tail later turned out to be indicative of his extraterrestrial origins, at first it was just one of the numerous nods of the manga to Water Margin.
I did, actually. DBZ was much more censored in my country than Pokemon ever was. The bloodiest parts were systematically cut out, some episodes didn' t even make sense as a result. They also cut that Hitler cameo in one of the OVAs. Apparently in the US the big taboo was nudity, when kid Goku was naked (which happened quite often) they either cut it out (as in the DBGT opening for instance) or drew trunks to hide those pesky dragon balls. I' d argue that Pokemon is just as violent as DBZ (if not more). Sure, there' s no blood in Pokemon, but that' s just sugar-coating, what matters is the "good guys" morality since they' re presented as role models. Besides, if you ask me not being graphic is the pernicious choice, at least when it' s bloody it' s honest.
It wouldn' t hide the fact that this episode would be a painful reminder for some people. Don' t take me wrong, I hate censorship in general, this one instance in particular just doesn' t bug me given the circumstances. And yes, censorship in general might harm the narrative, but I was talking about this episode in particular. Whose decision was it anyway ? For all I know the show creators might be the ones who decided to take that episode down.
Now that you mention it, I might as well ... Spoiler
I' m wearing jeans and a white/blue shirt. I' m somewhere in France, sipping a cup of coffee and smoking. My eyebrows aren' t swirly. I posted pictures of me in the appropriate thread a while back. Good luck ! ^^
No true Scotsman fallacy. Come and get me.
Just because they don' t show any blood doesn' t mean they aren' t fighting. Why do you think you get a game over screen when your whole team is wiped out ? No, having ways to magically bring them back to perfect health doesn' t make pitting them morally okay. The fact that Nintendo addressed this issue in later games is an admittance of its fridge horror potential in and of itself. Thankfully, none of this matters because it' s just a frigging game/cartoon. In the eyes of a child the pokemon fights are akin to a card game, most of them don' t actually realize what the subtext is and those who do probably healthily dismiss it as cartoon nonsense. Here' s a list of fridge horror in pokemon : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fridge/Pokemon There' s a high chance some kids would interpret such a warning as an "I dare you double dare you to watch it", not to mention they might miss the warning. Besides, as Nights already mentioned that episode is just bad publicity the creators themselves would gladly do without. Baning it is simpler, cheaper, more respectful, and it doesn' t prevent anyone to understand the overall story. Win win win win.
When I got a desk I kept working on my bed or on the floor. Mostly on the floor. My father does that a lot too when he' s in private rooms, and so does one of my cousins on his side of the family. Weird ...
The shark was the Grimm. You' re going to die.
"Being lazy: achieved. " Yay ! What did I win ? ^^ I only had two minutes to type something before I joined the yearly familial food-frenzy....
I got all the leftovers. My usually anemic fridge is now crammed with restaurant-quality food. Not to mention the biscuits and chocolates I didn' t put in there. Yay !
If he' s adamant about his choice then there' s nothing you can do about it. Well, you might ask why he' s upset and try to reconcile them in the long run, but it sure won' t happen overnight. I' m not sure I understand his ultimatum though, is he ok with you hanging with the other two as long as he' s not there ? Or is he not okay with you seeing the other two at all ? If it is the latter then screw him, he' s pushing his problems onto you and that' s not a friendly thing to do.
Last time I checked Santa wasn' t in the Bible. Last year I couldn' t join my family, so instead I joined a bunch of friends who were in the same boat. We ate chocolates and cakes, exchanged gifts and drank our brains out. Trust me, there was nothing Christian there.
I' ll leave this here.
C' est bizarre, je te vois jamais sur les topics débats. T' as ta dose à la Fac je suppose. ^^'' Joyeux noël / bonnes vacances / bon bourrage de...
That' s what you' ve been doing for years and yet your crime rate keeps increasing. This argument is nothing new, we know it doesn' t work, whether you realize it or not you' re advocating for escalation I already explained how problematic that is, you didn' t address my objections in any shape or form. Just carefully track who bought what and stop selling guns in convenience stores, it' s cheaper, easier, and more ethical. It' s better to base your reasoning on statistics and facts than on "common sense". Science 101. The fact that your common sense sounds awfully like textbook NRA arguments should raise a bias alarm. And you missed my point.
I edited my post, probably too late for you to notice, but yeah, I was thinking more about curbing measures than about a complete ban. All the independent statistics I' ve seen show that the less guns there are the less gun victims there are (which, duh), so I' m not sure where you got your statistics from. Apparently firearms are responsible for almost as many violent deaths in America as all other methods combined and account for more than 75% of all instances involving multiple fatalities : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm
You ignored my point actually, but you allow me to make another : apparently knowing many people carry guns around made you paranoid. Who would have thought ? Yeah, let' s give guns to the paranoid people, what a brilliant idea ! Making a powerful gun is incredibly more complicated than making alcohol or dynamite though. No, potato guns don' t count. I merely used grenades as an example to illustrate that if something is prohibited (let' s say you wanted one for some reason) then it' s far less easily accessible. You conveniently skipped my remark about how the Connecticut shooter found his weapon. How about non-retroactive measures ? I know, it would be slowly effective but so ****ing what ? I' m getting tired of hearing this. Of course there isn' t any Harry Potter instantaneous solution. Hell, JK Rowling made sure this was the kind of problem magic couldn' t poof away in her books, but if it works in the long run then it' s good enough for me. And btw, I agree that a complete ban probably wouldn't be a realistic approach in the US, at least for now. I was thinking about banning the powerful ones, curbing the amount of guns one can buy, make people jump through a lot of hoops to get them, ban gun advertising etc ... Let' s say those screenings were efficient, which they aren' t, what are you gonna do, brand them with an "at risk" yellow star ? As if they didn' t feel ostracized enough already ... I propose we also brand gun owners with a star, just to up the paranoia to uncanny levels !
A person is only as dangerous as his weapon allows him to be though. I assume you' d rather have to face someone waving a knife than someone holding an assault rifle. I never said guns were the source of violence, I merely pointed out they increase its consequences. Aren' t grenades banned ? How often do you hear of someone throwing grenades around ? Does the Connecticut shooter strikes you as a crime lord who has access to the black market ? A few criminals may manage to find guns no matter what, but a ban would undeniably make it harder for them to find one. More importantly it would make it incredibly more difficult for Mr Average Insecure Bully, Ms Oops I Forgot To Lock The Drawer and Mr Unnoticed Loony. I' m already not too happy knowing they exist, I' d be even less happy to let them have easy access to guns. Guns aren' t banned in my country mind you, but they aren' t easy to buy, they aren' t advertised at all, and I don' t think we allow assault rifles here. But as I just said it would reduce the number of potential criminals who would actually find a gun. You should take a look at England and Japan statistics. That' s why making it hard for people to find a gun to begin with, or at the very least not an over-powerful one, strikes me as a good idea.
