If Her Age Is On The Clock...

... then she's too young for the cock!

Good ol' adage! There are 3 major types of attraction to young people: pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia. Pedophilia is being attracted to prepubescent people, hebephilia to pubescent people and ephebophilia to adolescents. 

I had an argument with a friend a few days ago where we talked about pedophilia and the age of consent, or the age at which a person is considered "legally permitted to engage in sexual activity". His point was that only morality makes it wrong to lust for younger girls (we're both male, so we can only discuss a male point of view) and that as soon as girls start on their periods, their bodies are ready for sex. He went on to give me a history lesson where dozens of cultures in the past centuries used to marry girls aged 9-15 to older males and where nothing had gone wrong. 

Now, my point is not that he is completely wrong. But let's take this step by step. First of all, you gotta notice that people died at age 50 in past centuries, so being married and getting pregnant young made some sense. You also have to understand that people were trying to expand, just drop a bunch of kids in the world to spread the family name, and the world was a vast place. Nowadays, Earth is overpopulated, so again, the situation changes.

With that said, I agree that, biologically speaking, there is nothing wrong with having sex with women that have reached puberty. Puberty, as far as I understand, means that the body is ready for sexual reproduction. However! If sex is had with the goal of reproduction, and not simply pleasure, there are higher risks with teen pregnancies than with regular ones. According to WebMD, teens are more likely to get hypertension or preeclampsia. There is also the issue of discrimination, which can lead to depression or lack of pre-natal care or any other number of problems. Discrimination is something that society, as a whole, could try to erase, but nowadays it is still a sad reality.

So, having established that sex requires the body to mature enough, actual psychological maturity should also come into account.  Pedophilia is inherently wrong because the body isn't still ready for sex, but hebephilia and ephebophilia are not the case.

The desire for sex is something that depends on society and that will be different with different cultures. In my case, when I was 14, I only wanted to play video games and stuff like that. My female friends were aso not interested in marrying and having sex and getting pregnant at that age. We were kids, and we acted as kids. In different cultures, if girls are expected to marry at those ages, they act differently and might indeed want to get married and have kids. In other words, society's expectactions affect our desire for sex from a young age.

However, regardless of desire, the brain is not fully developed at the age of puberty. It also only fully matures at 25, and I expect most people to be mature enough to have sex before then. I'm guessing that maturity should depend on every single individual, and that there can't be a definitive age of consent. The problem is that there isn't also a way to find that value, so an estimate has to be given for the entire population. In Portugal and the USA, for example, a base age of consent is defined in the law, but there is still some room of maneuver for cases with older victims, and I find this a pretty good system; it allows for the victim's maturity to come into play and allows a case to be treated with some flexibility.

I guess my biggest issue with hebephilia and ephebophilia would be that fact that it's not something that will last. Imagine I have a daughter, 14 years old. If I'm in India, for example, I can marry her with the 22 year old living down the road, and they'll be married and have a great life. However, if I'm in Portugal and some 22 year old says he loves her and wants to date her, my immediate thought is that this guy likes little girls, is gonna do things to my daughter, and after a couple of years will move on to someone younger because she doesn't suit his fetishes anymore. Maybe the guy's sexual desires will change and he'll love her forever and they'll get married, but if he is 22 and still likes 14yo girls, than I find it unlikely to happen. I really just want my daughter to be happy and not "just another piece of ass".

What do you guys think? How are things in your country? Let me know in the comments below. Thanks for reading,

David

Feminism

Feminism is one of those ideas that started good and has lately derailed. According to Wikipedia, feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

When the movement first appeared, many women lived in a misogynistic environment, and even today some probably do. While I agree that both men and women deserve the same rights (why wouldn't they?), I also hear from many different sources that women still don't have the same career opportunities as men, still get paid less than men (except in porn), still feel treated with inferiority in a work environment.

My girlfriend showed me Lean In, a book from Sheryl Sandberg, where she accounts for a meeting she had at some company with several male employees and one other female employee. While someone was giving a speech, if a male employee questioned something, he'd be answered, but when either of the women interrupted, they got reprimanded. One of the male employees even noticed and commented this with the author.

Sexism is one of those things that I don't understand in society. If an employee or employer judges someone in the work environment by their work quality, they are in their right. But why would they neglect opinions just because they come from women? It makes sense that it has to do with sexual desires and/or frustrations, but problems like those should be solved with whoever was the source of the problem, and not with an entire gender.

Like I said, feminism started well. If feminism could solve these situations I just described, yay! The problem is, just like many other movements, there is a small percentage of the group which is much more aggressive, much more noticed and talked about, and much more wrong. I'm talking about the sexist feminists, the ones that don't advocate equality between genders, but that women should be above men.

It's because of these women that feminists and regarded as a joke across the Internet. These moronic women openly ridicule their own movement, with comments about how men did something and it caused them trouble and they want equality by being superior to men. They spread images claiming women, in no case whatsoever, should be physically hurt by men. It has become so widely known that even other women have tried to stop it.

I understand that this is just a small group of people, but as in most situations of society, a group is classified by their worse members and until they change, feminism is regarded by most men as some moronic claim from women that got fired for being incompetent but believe they got fired for being women.

As to my own opinion about feminism, I think women are different from men in many ways. Men are much more obsessed with sex than women, for example, and this leads to situations where a guy that sleeps with a lot of women is called a stud but a woman that slept with lots of men is called a slut. Because most men really just want to sleep with a ton of women and women are regarded as passionate and long-relation lovers (at least where I grew up), men who do are praised and women are insulted. While we have these differences among us, I think it's completely normal to treat people differently. If it was the other way around, if women were known for trying to screw every guy that showed, and men were known for trying to have meaningful long relations, then men would be called sluts and women studs. 

I support equal rights for both sexes, but I don't think equal rights means women should be treated the same way as men. I think the way we treat people is based on the way people act and the way we expect them to act. While race, for example, doesn't set a behavioral pattern (that I know of), at least in my opinion, gender sets behavioral differences and causes us to judge them differently. Maybe I'm being sexist, but show me proof and I'll change my opinion. 

I also think that women should not disregard their role as 'mothers' because they think it makes them look weak. I think a woman can chase a career, can be a strong and independent woman, and can still be a wonderful soccer mom, just like men can. It's all about balance. I'd like to quote Varg Vikernes on his (quite aggressive) opinion about feminism:

The modern women can no longer cook, they no longer want children and they are no longer warm, tidy and loving creatures who think spending time with their family is a good thing. They are probably too "independent" and "strong" to even have a family of their own. The only thing modern women have to offer men today is sex. So instead of being loving housewives who cook and raise children, they are reduced to being sexual objects only – and they are so messed up emotionally and intellectually that they often spend most of the money they make on their jobs on plastic surgery, cosmetics and tons of clothes they think will make them look good, in a desperate attempt to stay or become more attractive. Well, they have no other qualities attractive to men, so what else can we expect? This is the fruit of feminism. The fruit of “women’s liberation".

He does have a strong and aggressive point of view, but I find some truth (about some women) in his words. Anyway, hope you enjoyed this post.

Toodles!

David

Start Small, End Big

Yesterday we had a semi-'LAN Party' at my house. Four of us gathered and played Dota2 for a couple of hours. During that time, a song came up on my playlist, Razor Sharp. However, it wasn't the original version of the song, it's an edited version, edited by me, where I removed a lot of the dubstepy drop that can be heard from 1:35 to 2:10 and from 3:30 to 4:10. The song is the same for the rest of the track, it just has those parts cut out and the remaining joined together in a way that if you haven't ever heard the song, you don't notice it's been cut.

As I told my friends that I'd cut the song and taken out the parts I didn't like, they stared at me and asked 'Did you really cut out parts of the song?'. It wasn't in disbelief that I could do it, it was in contempt that I'd changed the original song. And I didn't understand their point, I said 'Well, yeah, it sounds much better this way!'. They just waved their heads in a 'this guy is crazy' kind of way and that was it.

After they left, I remembered the discussion and I tried to understand their point of view. Was it that an original song should not be edited, it should be enjoyed as the artist created it? Well, I do see a logic in that, but mixes and remixes and dance versions and radio editions and a bunch of other modifications to original songs plague the music industry, so I don't think my small 'cut out bad parts' edition should be frowned upon.

Was it because I'd actually taken the time and trouble to edit a song just because I didn't like part of it? Well, it's not like the process takes a lot of time (about 10 minutes it took, probably) and it's not like I have a very busy life. It's also not so hard to do, once you have some experience in video editing. And even if it was hard and took time, is it not worth it? I can now listen to 3m:48s of dubstep-less song and enjoy it without cringing half-way through the song.

I find a good analogy in a cooking recipe. Lets say there is this famous cooking recipe, but that you don't like one of the ingredients. Do you still do the recipe exactly as before? Or do you replace or take out that ingredient? I know I don't like anchovies, so if I'm making a pizza whose recipe tells me to top it with anchovies, I'm not going to do it. The song is exactly the same, if I can have it without the parts I don't like, then why shouldn't I do it?

As my good friend Aizen says in the Bleach manga, 'Winners should think about how the world should be, not how it is.' Obviously, a song isn't the world, and what I've done with it will not terribly affect anyone, but still, the concept applies. I think that everyone should think about how things are and how they'd prefer them to be and take action to do so. Start with something simple, like the decoration on your house, a song on your playlist, something. End with something the world will never forget. Just remember, your freedom ends when another man's begins, so don't ruin other people's lives with your actions.

Hoping you enjoyed the song (any of it's versions :P)

David

Racism, Sexism and Stereotypes

Hello, dear readers! It's been a while since I've posted something, but I've been quite busy with college and my thesis and all of that. Yesterday I finished all of my courses (18.5/20 average, fuck yeah!) and now I'm "only" missing my master's thesis to finish my course, yay! 

Well anyway, today's post is about discrimination. Let's start with a widely known quote (which I heard in V for Vendetta), by Gloria Steinem, a famous feminist:

Sex and race, because they are easy, visible differences, have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups, and into the cheap labour on which this system still depends.

I don't think anyone can refute the truth spoken in these words. The white male has been a major opressor of non-white races and non-male genders for centuries. Lately, it's improved quite a lot (no more slavery, good job, society) but you listen to stories all the time on the media about race crimes and all of that. The biggest problem with today's media coverage on race crimes is that the white race is still paying for last century's slavery (I am talking mostly about America).

Let's think of the following example: a thief walks into a designated house, expecting it to be empty. He then finds that the family was in the house, kills them all, robs it, leaves. Then he gets caught. If this crime were to be done by a white thief to a white family, media will announce "brutal murder in a robbery gone wrong". Black thief to a black family, same story. Black man to white family, same story. White man to black family "brutal race crime, racist finally caught". It's somethind that really annoys me in the media. The media follow the stereotype of "white people are racist and black people aren't".

It's just the same as when little children go missing. White 6yo girls spend 6 months in the news (remember Maddie? in my country she still pops up in the news once in a while), but spanish and mexican girls aren't even "worth mentioning".

But alas, we diverge! Back to discrimination. Why racism and sexism happen. 

Like Steinem said, it's easy to distinguish someone based on race and sex (and religion, but that's another topic). Why do people use that distinction to classify people in terms of superior and inferior races, I have no clue. I guess that, in mankind's eternal desire for power and control, the majority group could classify minorities as being less powerful, just because they're outnumbered. They could classify women as inferior just because the feminine physique is tipically smaller and weaker (strength-wise) than a male one. They could think less of other races just because they look different. At the bottom of it all, I think most people are just stupid.

Anyway, discrimination leads to stereotypes, which aren't always bad, but which aren't usually good. "Asians are smart", "black people are criminals", "white people are racist", shit like that. I think that stereotypes exist for a reason, in the sense that maybe statistics show that the asian community has better academic results than the american one, or that black communities have higher crime rates that white ones. I don't know if these are true or not, but I'd like to believe that stereotypes do have a proper source. The problem is, I also think you can't judge an entire race for what a small subset of them have/do/are.

I saw an interview on the Ferguson riots, which I can't find right now, but it mentioned the same point I'm trying to stress here. The internet was riddled with jokes about Ferguson (which, I have to confess, I found hilarious, I'm sorry, but I really have a twisted sense of humour) and how black people were just showing how inferior they were compared to white people, because they trashed the town in a protest. And again, I stress my point, whether you think the black community overreacted or not with these protests (which I think they have, to be honest), you can't judge an entire race by this small group of people.

However, one must also recognize that, as critical human beings, we judge people. Based on looks, actions, etc, we judge everyone we see. When I see someone that has adhered to the "swag fashion" (jeans below your ass, multiple caps, that kind of stuff), I can't help but think "this person has some issues". Well, the guy may be actually the coolest guy on Earth, but it's the same principle as to why you dress nicely for a job interview. Your looks count. 

Let's give an example. Imagine a painting showing 3 white men hanging a black man. Is it racist? If you immediatly thought it wasn't, then you might be a racist, because the white men may be hanging him just because he is black. If you immediatly thought it was, you're distinguishing the black race from the white race, so you judge people based on their looks. If you thought that it depends on whether this black man did some crime to deserve being hanged, then you are a wise one.

Obviously, and returning to Steinem's quote for the third time, race and gender are visible, and if you have an opinion like "black people are criminals", then when you see a black person you get wary of them. I think that this kind of logic can't really change for us as a species (the kind about judging someone and reacting to our beliefs, not about believe blacks are criminals), and I think that as long as your reaction does not step into the other person's freedom, it's ok. By this, I mean that if you cross the road in fear of being robbed, then you're not disturbing anyone. If you refuse service to a customer, then you are in the wrong. 

I've been focusing a lot on the thought of "black being criminals", but the same applies the other way around. If I lived in a black community, and the few whites that lived here were drug dealers, hey, I'd be ok with moms crossing the road with their kids to avoid going near me, it's in their right. I wouldn't be ok in applying to a job and being refused on the basis that I'm white.

Nowadays, it's sad that really offensive forms of racism and sexism exist. It's sad that black people have 42 more times the chance of being checked at airports than white people. It's sad that slavery still exists in parts of the world. I can only hope that one day this changes, but I believe it never will, unless we face a radical evolutionary change.

I wanted to address sexism and feminists and all of that, but the post is already too big, so maybe another time. All the best,

David

The Root of all Fears

When do you feel afraid? Crossing a dark alley? At night, running from the bathroom to your room, alone in your house? Some people would say they're terrified before exams and stuff like that, but I don't mean that kind of nervous fear, I mean the crippling, cold, terrifying one. The one that comes from within your mind, that freezes your limbs and makes you feel your own heart.

There are two great types of fear. Irrational fears, phobias and rational fears I don't have any phobias, and neither do I understand them. My sister freezes completely with spiders. My girlfriend with rats. I don't understand why; it seems to me you can rationalize what to do when faced against such small creatures. However, it IS considered an irrational fear, so maybe trying to understand it is the only thing that is wrong here.

Moving on to rational fears, you can define them as an emotion that arises from our perception of risk towards ourselves. It is an interesting thing, isn't it? Even when the danger lies solely in our imagination, we can still feel afraid. That's why people love watching horror movies or play scary games. I can't tell you how scared I was watching The Conjuring or playing Outlast. Not only did I jump, scream and held on to the closest person to me at the time, but after we were done watching/playing, I was still scared and went around the house checking for monsters. I know this sounds silly, but I'm not afraid of admitting that at 21 years of age, a damn movie scared the shit out of me! Even though it's an imaginary story that we are being told, when we are imersed in it, all the emotions come alive. It's a thrilling sensation, and one of the reasons why I love watching horror movies. 

Well, anyway, I remembered this post because of a story I read, Anansi's Goatman Story. It's a very realistic account by a teenager where him and some friends went camping and there was a sort of moster blending in among them. Even though my rational mind knows it's a fake story, there's always that one chance that it is real and that something like that actually happened. Imagining myself in that situation still gives me the creeps, even though it has been months since I've read it. Read it, drop a comment on what you think about it.

Now, my question to you on a previous post was "why are we afraid of death". This relates to why you are afraid of anything. My answer to it is quite simplistic: we are all afraid of the unknown. What we don't know may represent a risk for us, hence it causes fear. We are afraid of dying because we don't know what will happen when we close our eyes for the last time. Will the Christian's Heaven and Hell greet us? Will a paradise with 72 virgins welcome us? Or will nothing be there for us? And we will simply cease to exist? We are afraid of the dark because we have no idea what is lurking in the depths.

When we know what we are facing, we can come up with plans, strategies, ways to tackle our problems. But when the unknown faces us, when the realm of possibilities extends far beyong our own imagination, it is then that we are terrified beyong any logical argument.

Hoping I didn't scare you,

David

Monkey Business

After the #SomosTodosMacacos trend, I remembered something I read a few months ago. I can't remember if this is a real experiment or just something made up, but I find it really interesting.

"A group of scientists performed an experiment. They placed 5 monkeys in a room, as well as a ladder. Every once in a while, they put a banana on top of the ladder and when any of the monkeys tried to climb up the ladder to get the banana, they'd cold shower all the monkeys. Eventually, the monkeys learned not to climb the ladder and if any of them tried to do so, the others would beat him up. After this, the scientists replaced one of the monkeys with a brand new monkey. He obviously started to climb the ladder and got beat up by the others until he learned not to. They replaced all the monkeys, one by one, until none of the 5 monkeys were part of the initial group. Surprisingly, the monkeys kept beating any monkey that tried to climb up the ladder, even though none of them had ever been showered as punishment."

Interesting, isn't it? The experiment instantly reminded me of religious beliefs and I thought of something my dad once said. We were discussing religion and I told him I was an agnostic and he said he agreed with me. When I asked him why, he answered "If I did believe in a God, which religion would I choose?". I wasn't expecting that. He never became a religious person because most religions think some other religion is wrong and there is no way to decide which one is correct or not.

So, from then on, when I was talking about god and faith with my religious friends and family, I started asking them "Why are you a Christian, and not Jewish?" and every person gave me the same answer: "I don't know. I was brought up this way." From this, we can establish something right off the bat: religion is taught. If you don't think other religions are wrong, you don't think your religion is wrong, you don't think other's religion is worse or better than yours and you still claim to believe only in your own religion, then religion is taught.

The other thing we can establish is that we're just the same as monkeys. Just like monkeys were taught not to climb the ladder, so were half the people I know to believe in Christianity. When I was a kid, I asked myself why should I believe in god or not. I was too young to consider other religions, so I made this argument with Christianism. Is there proof God exists? No. Is there proof he doesn't exist? There can't be. You can't prove something doesn't exist. If I tell you that there is a Rock that turns everything it touches into gold, you can't prove I'm lying because you don't have all the pebbles in the planet and in the universe to prove it.

However, believing something to explain things we don't understand (which was how Gods were created, to explain night and day and fire and every other phenomena on this world) seems like a human instinct that exists today and probably existed thousands of years ago. Greedy men trying to take advantage of others would probably proclaim salvation from this world to satisfy their own selfish needs. If I lived 500 years ago, I would probably be one of those greedy cunts, to be honest.

But anyway, this is a mute point. No one but God can prove God exists. But just like you look at an insect and don't waste a single moment thinking about it, an omniscient and all powerful being will probably have the same opinion of us humans. However, I ask of you to think about your religion (if you have one) and why do you believe your god and not any other god from the thousands out there.

Hoping I didn't offend you,

David

The Gamer Syndrome

The Gamer Syndrome. This is something a friend of mine once decided i had. He classifies it as, and i quote, a "need to compete and win at everything". Now, to be honest, i agree with him to some extent. I hate losing. I think most people hate losing, just the same as me. However, there are many types of loss and everyone handles them differently.

I can mostly define two kinds of losing. By the way, when i mean losing, it's not necessarily on a computer game. You can lose at life, either on your job, at school, love, etc. But back on topic, 2 kinds of losing:

• Losing when you did everything you could. You tried your best at the new job, you studied the hardest you could, you tried to carry your DOTA team to victory. Still, it wasn't enough. Something out of your control didn't let you succeed. There is an upside and a downside to this situation. On one hand, that means you're not good enough to do something and that there's not much you can do change that. On the other, it means it wasn't your fault that you failed. My response to these kinds of "losing" is... Well, shit happens. Maybe try next time and I will do better. It makes me sad, but heck, i don't feel guilty and i realize that i, as well as everyone else, have limitations and can't obviously win at everything.
• Losing when it's your fault. This one is the worst. After many years of raging with my friends during online games, i came to realize no one accepts this kind of loss easily. It's a natural instinct, to point blame at someone else so you don't feel responsible for what happened. Kinda like when you blame your spouse for ruining a marriage when you know you could have been a better husband or wife. This one, when you recognize it was your fault, is the worst, by far. No only are you sad you failed a test, but you're depressed that you were dumb enough to spend the previous week partying instead of studying. My advice to this is to take responsability, apologize (if need be) and learn from your mistakes. If you don't learn anything from this situation, then you're asking for something similar to happen again.

Gaming helped me a lot to gain some insight on when I was being the "not my fault" kind of asshole. It still happens, every once in a while, but i usually try to bring myself to face the consequences and take the blame. I know a few people, however, that will need some drasticly traumatic experience to realize that they have this behaviour (looking at you, Sheila Broflovski).

Moving on, the other part of the "Gamer Syndrome", is the need to compete. I admit it, i am a very competitive person. It's what drives me to do something. I like a challenge, i like facing and completing a challenge, i like to show off that i did it. It's why i've always tried to be the best at whatever i am doing. Sometimes, i need motivation (say, when i'm feeling fat and i need to exercise, but I'm not feeling the energy for it) and i watch some motivational video on YouTube.

I don't think being competitive is a bad thing, to be honest. It's bad if you can't handle defeat, but assuming you have a positive attitute on "losing", then I believe it's what makes people successful and happy. This may seem like a big logical jump, between being competitive and happy, but let me quote a scene from Se7en.

 - I just don't think I can continue to live in a place that embraces and nurtures apathy as if it was a virtue.

 - You're no different, no better.

 - I didn't say I was different or better. I'm not. Hell, I sympathize. I sympathize completely. Apathy is a solution. I mean, it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life.

 - Yeah.

 - It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it.

 - Yeah.

 - It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs. It takes effort and work.

So, for someone who lacks that drive to compete and win, it seems it is a lot easier to fall under the "apathy" that Morgan Freeman is describing. I'm sure I will never become a drug addict because i feel like thats giving up at life and freedom. I will never consider suicide because it's losing the race that is life. It's the drive to compete that creates successful businessman and entrepreneurs. And i think that having goals and fulfilling them is what makes you happy. Competitivism will naturally grant you objectivas and goals for your life. They don't need to be big. Small goals are part of everyone's life, and the gratification you get for accomplishing any of those goals is what i think will make someone happy during the course of their life.

That's all for today. As a final thought, consider the following. You may think, just like me, that you will not give up and that you compete and face your own mistakes. However, there are lots of things that can happen in your life that somehow make you lose hope (the loss of a loved one, or an injust situation). If faced some situation that made you feel despair, how would you come about and overcome it?

Cya next time

David

Carpe Diem, YOLO and Hakuna Matata

I've long come to the conclusion that most people may like the same concept but don't like it when it is referred to by another name. The most obvious example of this is the expression of enjoying the moment, because life is a fleeting moment. There are many expressions by which people say this, and it seems to me that they're all used by different kinds of people.

We have the teenagers with an attitude, fans of hashtags, with their #yolo: you only live once. This is probably the most erroneously used term of "seize the moment". People saying YOLO seem to think it should be used to do something retarded that might get you in danger. This has obviously lead to a lot of jokes and insults to YOLOers throughout the world.

Secondly, we have the Disney fans and children of the world, with Hakuna Matata. It's original meaning is "no worries", but in the Lion King movie it was slightly changed to "forget the past, like in the present". There was another animation movie, Kung Fu Panda, with a similar quote, that made me think some children's movies make excellent points for adults.

Finally, the all famous latin Carpe Diem. I found this one through Dead Poets Society and it's meaning is to "seize the day". This one seems to be used by more mature people or at least by people who understand what it means. If you haven't seen that movie, you really should; everyone should know the Oh Captain, My Captain reference.

Now, regarding the advice itself, I think we can all agree it's a reasonable advice. We need to enjoy it while we can, or one day you will wake up too old to do all the things you've ever wanted to do. When your friend says he won't go ask out a girl's number because she might reject him, you say "Carpe Diem. If you never ask, it will always be a 'no'.". When your friends say they don't want to try out a new restaurante because they might not like the food, you tell them "YOLO, you might be missing out on your favourite food for the rest of your life!". When your kid is nervous about a test or a bad grade he think he will have and is going to spend a week moping around, tell him "There's no point in being sad about that. Hakuna Matata, learn from this mistake and study harder on your next test.".

Finally, if you ever find one of those people that never seem to smile because they're always worried and obsessing about something, try to lighten them up and leave a smile on their face. What's the point of living if you don't enjoy it, right? 

That's all for today. High five! (In the face.) (With a chair.)

David

Bad Ways to Go

After reading this post, i remembered something i read in the newspaper today. For those of you who can't read portuguese, this old woman in my town died because her house was on fire and, due to her old age, she couldn't leave the house. (Great start for a cheery post, talking about someone burning to death.)

Now, this is one of the worst ways (I can think of) you can die (in the modern era, at least). Hundreds of years ago, when flaying and dismembration were common things, burning to death might have been quicker and less painful than the worse kinds of torture. Nowadays, and assuming you're not a war prisioner with vital information *cof*, burning really is a terrifying way to die.

When people think about how they would like to die, there's usually one thing all answers will share: fast or painless. It's logical, isn't it? You either want a painless death in your sleep or you will want a quick death that won't drag on for hours or days or even months. People don't like pain, so they want to avoid it. People are scared of death, so they wish for a quick one.

Now, what ways to die do not match any of these criteria?

• Burning, obviously. Extremely painful, and those few seconds that will take you to lose consciousness will seem like an eternity. 
• Drowning comes to mind. Water in your lungs is already painful when you're swimming at the beach and you breathe at the wrong moment. Feeling the inevitability of your air running out while you're under the surface of the water must be something beyond despair.
• Long term disease. This one is interesting. Depending on the disease, you can either know you're going to last a few days, or a few years. I like this one better than the others mainly because it gives you a motivation to do something you've always wanted to do but never had the courage to. We'll get back to this one.
• Battle wounds. I say battle and you think of swords, but cops, criminals, soldiers and innocent people die everyday with gunshot wounds, bleeding cuts, infected injuries, either from civil wars, robberies, vehicle accidents or even accidents in the kitchen.
• Poison or intoxication. Either accidental or intentional, if you realize that you are doomed and have a few painful moments left to live, what would you do?
• Fall damage. I know, this is a quick death, it's why so many suicides are jumps from bridges or tall buildings. But I've always wondered... In those few seconds where you see the pavement approximating real fast from your face, do you not feel scared shitless? Or do people just close their eyes?
• Starving/dehydrating (this includes being buried alive O.o)
• Suicides gone wrong. I'm not including this in the "battle wounds" category, because an attempt at a quick death resulting in a slow or painful death (or sometimes not resulting in death at all) is really different from someone who was shot or got hit by a car. I've read somewhere about suicides that didn't kill the person attempting them and that must have made the person suffer so much more than they intended to.

Ok, I can't remember many more ways to go, except for these. I want to talk some more about the disease topic and the suicide one, because i feel they're the ones who have room for discussion, but that will probably be left for another post. I will also talk about what would be a go way to go.

For now, i leave you with the following thought. Above, i said "People are scared of death, so they wish for a quick one.". Most people will agree, they are scared of death. If you ask them why, they usually can't answer. Some will say "I don't want to feel pain" or "I still have things i want to do" but that is answering why they don't want to die, not why they are afraid of dying. I have an answer for this question, but maybe someone can give me a different point of view.

All the best

David