Jump to content

Shienvien

Members
  • Content Count

    3,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. One day, we'll all die anyway. 'When?' is the main question of this debate. Shall we make our habitat unsuitable for ourselves (which, in my opinion, is far from equaling destroying it - someone else might yet thrive in it), shall the sun 'die' before we make it properly out of the solar system, or shall the entire universe undergo heat-death or collapse upon itself...
  2. Never cared what is fashionable - I simply have relatively long fingernails because I find them convenient. I've strong nails, so these won't break, either. I think these currently are at some 5-6 millimeters, a bit shorter on the pinky, but they've been longer. What is interesting, I can't tell of a case where my nails would have gotten in the way - I type all the time, tens of pages per day on occasions, and I simply can't relate. For my nails to even touch the keyboard's surface, I'd either have to hold my fingers at a rather uncomfortable angle - uncomfortable to the point they start hurting if the position is maintained - or lift my wrists up from the surface (the table next to the keyboard) those rest on - and then my arms would tire before I get my work done. I've also played piano, and... *shrugs* In addition, I can open cans and various packets with ease -often, even other people have asked me to open things for them -, peel oranges, what have you. Drawing? Does not get in the way, and I draw quite often. Curling my hands into fists? Doesn't hurt - it is the flats of my nails which rest against the palm, at least in my case. On top of that, handling small things, such as picking a needle up, would be a pain without the nails. Never accidentally scratched myself or others. (In my experience, short nails are actually somehow sharper.) Plus, the nails have repeatedly spared my fingertips from being hurt quite badly. (And how does using the backs of one's fingers help with scratching? There's nothing there what can help with it.)
  3. I got a 0. I'll mention, though, that the screen you use has a lot of impact on the result. Good screen might improve your result, whereas a bad one will add to the score.
  4. The part of the nervous system which detects pain doesn't start functioning before around the 32thweek of pregnancy, a long way from the legal limit for choice-abortions. Thus, no physical suffering. What is not self-aware (due to the lack of advanced brain functions) and can't feel pain, can't suffer. Plain factual, provable science. One doesn't need parents, true, but for a human being to develop into a functional part of the community, the one needs proper social interaction - parents are one way to provide it. As are foster parents and social workers - but unfortunately, if no one cares for that child, the one will likely not receive a sufficient amount of attention and love. This is why so many unwanted children end up leading miserable, often short lives. Let me ask you another question: would Albert have become the same brilliant scientist if he suffered constant abuse and neglect during his entire childhood, and got no proper education either due to it? Very few of the former unwanted children lead decent lives even when already out of the system, and even those who would have had the potential to become someones usually do not, because they will never get the chance to put the potential to work.
  5. I have 'decorative' or semi-pet chicken. (Who lay eggs as a bonus.) It actually started from the adoption of two veteran chicken from a place where they were mainly kept for food and eggs... Addition to them came later. Each has its own color: black, black/light gray striped, dust-gray, white with black-dotted neck, dark brown, yellowish beige. They all also have their own personalities and habits.
  6. If you have got a sufficiently large cage which is cleaned regularly, they shouldn't. At one point I used to have four in... I think 60x80x70Cm cage, which I cleaned once a week. No notable smell at all.
  7. The computers I was speaking of were not my own; I was simply asked to remove whatever had intruded. I only use MS Windows for computer-gaming - MS Windows XP Proffessional is the tertiary OS on my second PC. (This one currently has ZA and Avira - a single thing has yet to get through.) Otherwise I use other OSs.
  8. I would strongly recommend neither of them. Norton will slow down the computer, but do very little in the sense of actually protecting the computer, and MS Security is fairly low-function. (I've discovered plenty of viruses from computers with either.) Generally, a good firewall is more essential than an antivirus. If the first functions properly and you don't make any inadvisable downloads / permit everything to enter your computer yourself, you practically don't need the latter.
  9. Replace the 'males' and 'man' with 'females' and 'woman' and you've essentially got me. Already being physically close to a woman is uncomfortable at times, even if no feelings are involved. A quick hug is the most I will accept from another woman, and even like that, I've never felt the want to hug another female myself. I also can't find a woman attractive, and don't have any preferences over a woman's appearance whatsoever - I simply can't my brain to care about it. The same does not apply for men... And here I have to admit that even when I don't show it, it does bother some subconscious part of me when I can't tell whether a person is male or female. (It, however, occurs extremely rarely. I might mis-classify trans folk, though, but that probably doesn't make a difference when it is purely internal for me. )
  10. Seems the other half of the society - the one promoting smoking - was stronger. Furthermore, you do not actually know how many people have stayed away from smoking because of the warnings, since they simply do not smoke. It mostly depends on whether the said person is prone to heeding warnings or not. Also, I know triggers can either be induced by personal experience, be introduced by society, or be seemingly reasonless. Those do not have only a single possible cause. (Lastly, I finished my previous post.)
  11. The world, sorrily, is already filled with way too many warnings of things which technically aren't harmful - and warnings themselves, as I mentioned before, can cause fears. Now, threatening the child with something might be emotional abuse - I don't deny that -, but why is it different from what you compared it to... The person I mentioned (she's not my personal co-worker, though, rather simply a close acquaintance) already had an existing fear before your proposed scenario, derived either from some unknown faulty mental pattern or some nasty experience with square-shaped items. The child, however, does not fear the thing before he is threatened with it. The child wouldn't have the reaction if the environment didn't tell him it was something bad. Humans, as social animals, learn from others. Same with other animals. An animal often can't afford testing everything on its own skin - it would die early if it did - but instead it will see what its fellow animals warn it from. If a human sees WARNING: [insert a thing here] often enough, it can become imprinted as something one should react violently to, without the person formerly having any reaction to the object. As stated twice before, I do agree one should definitely stay respectful towards people who already have triggers/phobias, as well as that some things should be TWed. I think the main point of disagreement here is not so much the existence of TWs, but the frequency, location, and cases in which TWs should be present. Such as I think that the things, which one would almost inevitably encounter in daily life, should not be TWed. You'll almost definitely see a dog, ocean, someone eating, et cetera, at some point. (I even would say that nudity is an overblown matter, since... well, I'd like to see how one avoids seeing oneself naked, as well as being naked doesn't actually harm anyone without related triggers, unless the environment happens to be hazardous - too cold, hot, what have you. But that's another topic.) Things which are deemed very disturbing and do not fit in society, however, should be TWed - somewhere. You don't normally see extreme violence, abuse, gore and other similar in your real daily outside of on various screens... At least not when everything is normal and in order. If you do, there is probably a lot to be corrected, and quickly. Hmm, and when the actual usefulness of TWs comes into play, since as I pointed out a person won't simply see them if they flick the TV randomly on or switch channels every now and then unless those are shown every two minutes... Wouldn't the more rightful place of TWs be on an entirely separate (I am having memory-gaps here.) list of programmes. The one you will take a look at when you want to know when a certain movie of programme starts. If one has a trigger severe enough to inhibit the one's functionality, ten seconds of checking the content of the channel before switching to said channel probably is for the best. Erh, and I pick my books by opening those in the middle and reading a few pages... I am more concerned with whether the author has the ability to write well or not than with genre or content. The ratings I've often found inaccurate or outright incorrect and misleading, and even summaries can paint a very contorted image.
  12. Here I admit I've no idea how triggers feel personally, because I don't have any. However, I do know how it looks like, and for the most part, I know how to deal with those people, too. If I know the person will end up paralyzed and hiding in a corner is s/he sees a square or a snake, I naturally wouldn't wear a shirt with square-patterns on it near the one, or send the one a picture of a friend's new pet-snake (or worse, go to the one with a live snake). That is common courtesy of a personal level, and an entirely different thing from commercial warnings. As I said, I've already got a person who has severe problems with voice-read text-warnings on TV - there is no guarantee the same wouldn't occur with TWs, if those were commonly implemented. The person wouldn't be able to watch TV anymore, since those warnings wouldn't conveniently have advertisements of various medicine before those, so he wouldn't know to switch a channel. True, he doesn't know whether it is the dictor's voice, the fact that there is white text on gray screen, or something else. He simply can't take those, and it takes some effort to calm him down if he accidentally still sees one. And here you are underestimating the psychological effect constant warnings might have. I know of many cases when warnings of (using/watching) things attached to the things have eventually developed into fears of said things. It is far more common then you would think. Including, why I brought the child-example out, the warning labels on everyday items. If it says, 'may cause blindness if gets in the eye', there actually is a considerable probability that someone, especially if the idea of eye-injury already quirks him/her, will refuse to handle that item or substance altogether, though the probability of actual harm is very, or almost insignificantly low. 8 out of 10 things next to me might actually cause immediate blindness in at least one eye, if handled carelessly. - Here was an example where a warning actually deepened the fear of something. - Most phobias are, at least to an extent, derived from something or someone indicating that said thing is bad - society tells you spiders, over here completely harmless creatures, are to be feared, you start to fear spiders. I can't think of a case when a small child sees a tiny spider at distance for a first time and is immediately terrified of it, but I know several cases when a person has developed the fear later. If it is big and moves too fast, such as with dogs occasionally, or when it crawls onto your arm, causing unpleasant sensation... or when something actually does hurt you, the reaction is more logical, and might be naturally induced, if expressing, in case of phobias, exaggeratedly. I know TWs would usually and for most be just a minor annoyance - hey, I've been ignoring whatever commercials contain for as long as I've watched TV or used the net - but I also know many fears would be much less common when the society wouldn't enforce those, and living in a world filled with constant warnings is terrifying for many. To the point where they refuse to step out of the door because they might encounter something or have something happen to them. True, a little bulletin in the beginning of the movie, stating 'contains violence/blood/scenes which might disturb some' doesn't do that. Not usually, at least. But now imagine the bulletins were about every very common phobia/trigger (since phobias and triggers are undeniably related), every time one appeared on-screen. (What about on posters? Should posters advertising spider-exhibitions or an anatomy museum be banned?) And, should the programme stop before the potential trigger-scenes to show the warning? I imagine most horror-movies, if shown on TV, would lose the reason why they are shown. Besides, many people just flick the TV-set on when they feel like it, switch the channels at random, et cetera. They would never see the warnings unless those were repeated constantly right before each trigger-scene. In case of TV, a warning shown on the screen once, or even after each commercial-break, does have very little in the way of a beneficial effect. Most people have something what quirks them, however those things do not have a powerful enough impact to be called triggers. The majority would accidentally flick on a scene that disturbs them, very quickly switch the channel or look away, shudder, and live their lives on. The world crashing down on the person just because a woman in a movie is sewing, and the sewing-needle resembles those of syringes, must have a very severe phobia of needles. Not just get uneasy near needles, or have an issue with getting one under the one's own skin. And, phobias like that, those which hinder the person's very functionality, are, even if sadly common, psychological problems, and might require help, if the phenomenon is common enough. Say, you freeze when you see a dog. Now, think of how common dogs are. Should you be allowed to drive if you require a warning on TV-screen before a dog is shown? Seeing a dog on a street is extremely common, and if you will crash the car into the lamppost or the unfortunate pedestrian because of it... You can probably see why freezing when seeing a dog, even if that *is* common, needs to be worked on. I don't say it would be easy. Now, you brought out cussing - you've probably never seen me using what is generally considered strong language, simply because I do not habitually swear other than muttering something quietly under my breath when I, say, trip over something I didn't see and only barely manage to maintain my balance. I rarely might use some very mild terms every now and then when the situation includes strong feelings, sometimes impliedly stronger terms abbreviated to for example the first letter of the word and '-ing', and I'll even warn, if it is said I should, in the ways of common courtesy, despite of it perhaps seeming ridiculous to me. (I don't know anyone who would have a panic attack over a typed-up swearword, though I know many who dislike swearing.) Do I print 'Contains language and descriptions of blood/death/what have you' on the back covers of my books? No. If the intended audience isn't small children, why would I? I do skip detailedly describing certain scenes anyway, but I don't think I should necessarily write it out somewhere that someone would die a violent death, when the nature of the piece doesn't generally exclude that. Most people will be fine three minutes after, if they just close the thing that disturbs them, look aside, or stop reading. To put an end to this long text of mine, I actually said in the previous post and maintain, that some things which are socially accepted as commonly very disturbing (in the lack of better term) perhaps should be warned against. Including things which show severe injuries or medical conditions, or getting the former - people being ripped apart, not just a bit of blood; various stages of infections, internal parasites or mutilated corpses, not just a few red dots on someone's skin or a lacking finger -, strong physical violations of people, etc. (EDIT: Or flashing things that might cause seizures, same with other purely medical hazards.) Those kinds of things, yes, though even in that case, let the warning not be displayed every two minutes, but remain (in case of TV-programmes) in the beginning and after the commercial-break.
  13. 1./2. I do not have any triggers, nor have I ever had ones. 3./4./5. Now, I can agree with extreme violence (and similar) being warned of in the beginning of a visual/audio programme containing realistic footage of such, but I do not think TWs as such are generally necessary for everything which might be a trigger for someone. For one, for everyone without the triggers the warnings do not serve a purpose, and being repetitive, they will likely be a bother, or, worse, they might become milder triggers themselves. I know several people who do not tolerate certain commercials, I know at least one who will become severely irritated and upset if he hears that warning which over here is the necessity after medicine-advertisements. (He actually has to switch channel when an advertisement of such kind comes on, to avoid the following notice and the related distress.) Furthermore, there are only a few common triggers - bloody/gory scenes, extreme violence in its many forms, medical equipment, various creepy-crawlies. The rest are somewhat rare, and you can't and shouldn't warn about all of them, at all times, else the warnings themselves become a source of severe distress. - You can't warn about water being present for the sake of all the people who are afraid of drowning, high places for those afraid of heights, of dogs being present on the screen for all those many who are afraid of dogs... Warn of blood, of the color red or blue, of meat, of light, of darkness, of open spaces, of closed spaces, of sudden loud noises, of square shapes being present (I know one person who will immediately cover if she sees one; her colleagues don't wear clothes with square patterns because of her), of [insert a thing here]. ...Of specific TWs. At last, being continually warned of something might by itself call forth related psychological problems. If the mother persuades the child to take his medicine at the threat of taking him to the hospital instead, then the child will likely develop a fear of hospitals, as those are constantly portrayed as something bad - an effect similar to that, for example. Many fears derive from the influences of environment, including, ironically, the very warnings present in the said environment. For general socially terrible things in their stronger forms, such as someone being ripped apart or violated on-screen, yes, TWs might be present, but otherwise, I think TWs might do even more damage than they avoid.
  14. I am a woman and have always been, despite perhaps being not the stereotypical one. - I recall most of my posts in this topic before it was cleared being of how one's interests, preferences and behavior are no indicators of one's gender.
  15. The boring old strictly heterosexual woman over here. (Curious how the only replies in this thread this far have been made by those not heterosexual only.)
  16. Keyboard. (I would never manage the 160-180 words per minute I do while typing and my hand tends to tire faster when I can't support my arm/wrist on the table, not to mention the unavoidable messed-up words. Besides, unless I am deliberately writing to be readable and remember to keep that up while writing, my handwriting is terrible and can't be read by anyone but myself.) But generally I do not prefer a pencil over pen or vice versa when I don't have a keyboarded device at hand. Of pencils I use only the refillable 0.5 and 0.7 mm ones, though, mostly because the standard pencils require sharpening far too often for my liking for them to leave reasonably thin and unblurred lines.
  17. 175 cm equals about 5'9''. (176.5 cm or 5'9.5'' myself, but still hopelessly out-towered by nearly all of my male, and some of my female friends.)
  18. Now, to admit, I've done some artwork for various friends/acquaintances/projects for free every now and then - but then it has been strictly voluntary and out of my free will. I wouldn't do the same for any person walking up to me and asking, even less react to a random 'advertisement' on some page. (And though I on some very rare occasions have written on requests, I've never written to-be-released works for free. Various little entries written for one's own non-profit entertainment (e.g. roleplay posts) are naturally excluded.) In other words, if the artist happens to feel like doing someone he or she knows a favor, I don't oppose it, but I do not approve of people *expecting* artists writers to work for free or next to free. Even less I approve of those who simply go and take a piece without asking - those who perform art-theft, in essence.
  19. I have played violent computer-games since the age of 13-14... Would probably have played before that, too, but before then playable computer-games simply *didn't* exist yet. I can't say that those affected me in any way- the only time you'd see the real-life me violent would be if you went and physically attacked either me or someone I know. Video-games making people violent is a myth, nothing more- an already violent person might have a preference for more brutal games, but a non-violent one won't turn more violent because of them. If the child wants to play the game and doesn't neglect his/her studies or housework for it, and the parents agree on the child playing, I say let them.
  20. Is it? I've only learned the "British" English, though I've now inevitably taken in some US English influences, and I was taught the way NixAyum put it. (And I've honestly never seen your version, be it in books or otherwise.)
  21. Queer- doesn't happen for me, and I have long nails, too. What is the connection of playing piano and having short nails, though? I've played piano for a bit in the past and can testify my long nails don't get in the way- in fact, if I wanted to press the keys in a way that actually leaves the nails touching the keys even slightly I'd have to hold my hands in a rather uncomfortable position. (Which means I can't keep up with it this way for long anyway, simply because my hands become tired of the position.)
  22. Say, I have natural nails and mine never break- which is a thing that largely depends on one's genetics, general health and whether or not one polishes/etc. the nails. (Nail polish, especially if worn constantly, makes them significantly more fragile.) I've burnt/melt off my nails a few times, though, unintentionally- if I didn't have them then my fingers would either be shorter or lacking fingerprints by now. I am actually curious on how the long fingernails can get in the way, unless they are truly past half an inch in length? I've had nails this long in the past (currently more around 1/5 of an inch.) and neither handling more complicated tools or climbing on the cliffs those got in the way, not to speak about more mundane tasks. (In the case of some of which, like mentioned, those actually are helpful.)
  23. Well, I use my mainly nails on the rare occasions I am doing something on the cell phone, but it isn't by far the only thing I use my nails for. Pick something small up/out, turn the pages on the book, open one of those tin cans... It all is very hard to accomplish with short nails, at least to me. My fingers simply start to feel blunt, short and clumsy without. Mine've been practically constantly fairly (but not too) long for over the past decade, hence...
  24. Not quite that simple. It's structural/behavior differences. Nobody went and looked at old houses and figured that since those are nonuniform in thickness, glass must be liquid.
  25. Why'd it be wrong? No-one is damaged.