Duff

Is the dog in your sig yours? Why do you ask, though? Last night I got a good buzz. My friend wanted to go into this huge loud party while there were police officers just down the street busting another party. So I told him I was heading back. Got stopped along the way by one of my best friends who is an RA (at this time, I wasn't really buzzing anymore). He invited me to watch Friday Night Lights with him and his RA friends, so I said sure. Kinda funny. Now my throat is sore for some reason... Was it because I had a forty, and that was more carbonation than I have had in probably a year (and I drank it pretty fast)?

I never want to see anyone die in front of my eyes. I would probably get anxious and have a fit.

Naked As We Came - Iron & Wine

It isn't mine, but I have one almost exactly like it.

Ate some bread sticks tonight for dinner. They have this weird seasoning on them, but they were pretty darn good. On the subject of bread, I love fresh french bread. I could eat a whole loaf plain if I had one.

Friend and I got two forties for tonight. We're just gonna chill and watch a movie. Let's hope a [bleep] RA doesn't go and search our whole room for it (cause we've got some kick ass hiding spots). :thumbup:

Sorry, I just can't think of her name right now. D:

I remember talking about this in psychology class, and how no one really knows. It's one of those crazy mysteries. But I hear that all characters in your dreams (i.e. humans) are people you've seen before in your life. It might just be a myth or something, though. But the thought of that is creepy. You have a dream and in it is a person who walked past you in the city who you just barely glanced at.

Over, I just watched your oddball gameplay vid on YouTube. :thumbup: :thumbup: Anyway, I hate Elite slayer. Especially when there's a challenge for sticky grenades. Then everyone wants to do elite slayer. :c

Ragoo - Kings of Leon

Would've posted earlier this morning, but I had classes. Which means I don't remember my most memorable dream I had last night. It involved two T-rexes who would fight by locking fists (like punching each other's fist, but keeping them touching). I dunno how one beat the other. Anyway, I can't remember more on that subject. But Professor Lupin from the Harry Potter series was in it for a moment, and he was chasing a house dog around (the house dog was scared [cabbage]less) and I realized that it was because Lupin was a werewolf, and for some reason I figured house dogs fear werewolves the most. I went to tell him this, but he knew already and told me to keep quiet because the T-rexes weren't allowed to find out, else something bad would happen.

'Hero' would probably be worse to throw around than 'brave', honestly. That was what I was getting at. A poster was talking about labeling them hero's, when really you had been talking about associating bravery to them. I would completely understand why someone wouldn't call a cancer patient a hero simply because they have cancer. That depends. If they have some hope of survival,that could be bravery. Otherwise it's a cowardly clinging to of whatever small scrap of awful, painful life they can hold on to for a brief moment. And that is definitely your opinion. I could certainly construct such a situation so that said person could be exhibit bravery. :P And it calls into question the sensitive and controversial subject of euthanasia/assisted suicide (whatever you want to call it), which would be better off discussed in a different thread.

There is the social stigma against girls sleeping around. Guys are 'cool' if they do it, girls are '[bleep]s'. So it's often harder for girls (not to mention they are naturally more sensitive). You have to be very very strong willed (and have friends who stick with you through it) to ignore being bullied.

One makes a conscious decision to accept the inevitable, that's my point. You say "bravery can be accepting the inevitable". But "accepting the inevitable" is separate from simply "having cancer". The two are not part in parcel; and that's where the difference lies. I never said that people who have cancer cannot be brave. I'm saying the physical act of having a tumor grow on your body, with nothing else considered, cannot be brave. And yes, psychologically there is a battle to stay positive. But you're not fighting the disease in the sense of a physical fight. All you're doing is proving my point - that it takes a conscious decision to define bravery. Our definitions appear to be the same. Of course, when you talk about practical applications of bravery the definition can change. Like you said, some may think it's braver to chose the long, painful fight with cancer over euthanasia, for instance. Others may see it the other way - that deciding to face death immediately to end your suffering is the brave thing. That's where a difference of opinion comes in. But can you not see how strange it is that one would never, ever apply the label of bravery to an uncontrollable action alone? Yet, as soon as cancer comes up, it's suddenly made an exception. List me something, anything, that if it "happens" to someone, immediately makes them brave. I'm not talking about their mentality, or their decisions. Just any uncontrollable occurrence or accident. I think the main problem here is that you're missing my point. First, a positive psychological approach has actually, in some instances, proven useful in the physical battle. Why else would we have a 'placebo effect'? I read through your post, and I do see you point now. To be honest, everything physical in this world is inherently 'nothing special,' or is not associated with any adjective; there's no inherent connotation to anything physical. So yes, I agree: the disease cancer does not necessarily bring about bravery. But I've been assuming this whole time that in many cases, the 'struggle' against cancer is brave. Yes, it's a generalization, assuming people who have cancer are brave. But it's a generalization for a reason; many people do prove to be brave. This quote is confusing, but I can see how you mean that cancer inherently is not brave at all. But really, someone throwing around the word 'brave' when talking about cancer patients, even if they aren't exactly sure if this person fits people's definitions of bravery, shouldn't be a big deal. For some reason, I can't bring myself to believe that you really think doing so does a disservice to true bravery. No one is going to think that people who go to war for their country (or do more extreme things) are any less brave because people 'accidentally' generalize that a cancer patient is brave, too.

If I take naps during the day, I wake up and I just feel really groggy and crappy for some reason. Plus, naps are always a hassle cause I have to take my contacts out. :\

Finished my Chemistry lab. So boring. And so much writing. I hate writing 1) my handwriting is awful 2) it's so much slower than typing 3) it hurts after you write so much.

At this point, I go to bed around 11pm and wake up at 7-8am. Sometimes I can't get to sleep until 12am, though. I was thinking of making a dream thread, so this'll be a great place to post my dreams. :thumbup:

Of course I wouldn't see the act of falling off the cliff brave. But I can, assuming I knew what you were thinking, reason that you were brave as you fell to your death. We all don't know what death entails (what happens after), so who is to say that facing death with acceptance isn't brave? Again, I stress, bravery and it's definition can be likened to love/beauty's definitions. We're aren't going to get anywhere arguing about differences in definitions.

I again say, control and conscious decision may be part of your definition. But bravery for me can be accepting the inevitable. I find that a very brave move, regardless if they have control over it or not. Also, per 'fighting for your life', psychological approach does play a huge role in it. Just saying. A person can 'fight' cancer by staying positive about it, because that battle is on a completely different level.

Meh, we have our own definitions of bravery, then. @ Obfuscator: If the above is true, though, who are you to say that it is ridiculous to call someone brave when it doesn't match our own personal idea of bravery? Who are you to say that being a cancer patient is not brave at all? Anyway, bravery is one of those abstract ideas that, when it comes down to it, cannot be fully defined.

:thumbup: Get it, son!

I'm sure many say the opposite is brave: sticking it out, experiencing the suffering.

Lenin said throwing around the word 'brave' was problematic, not the word 'hero'. And to be honest (and I don't mean any offense), I think that Lenin's being a bit unreasonable, as are the people who agree with him. I mean, come on, does it really piss you off when people call a kid who is going to die soon 'brave'? Who cares if this kid doesn't fit the exact definition of bravery. In such a situation, why should you be pissed about a little misuse of the word? Death is right in front of them; they know they won't live as long as they could have without cancer. They have to deal with that, and I find simply living on knowing that to be brave, simply accepting it.

To me, I can't even comprehend being completely and totally unaware. I know what being unaware of something feels like, but being unaware of everything? That can't be described with simple words (similar to how emotions can't really be explained fully with words). I caught the bold, by the way. ;) Yeah not existing is not really something we can comprehend. There's no feeling we can put behind it to understand it. I've accepted that I can't comprehend it. That's just it. Non-comprehension = nothing. We cannot isolate the feeling of non-comprehension, though, and attribute that to what happens after death. Even though we cannot comprehend it, other emotions are still flying (for me, frustration is most prominent), we're still living, etc. We're just going in circles here, because we cannot know what being completely non-comprehensive feels like (i.e. a being who's essence is non-comprehension). Oh, and another thing, "non-comprehension = nothing" is not a fact, but your opinion. Just wanted to point that out. For Catholics, being unable to comprehend perfect love (or perfection in general) does not mean it cannot exist (i.e. is nothing). Rather, God's nature (for God is perfect, unconditional love and perfect in Godself) does not allow us humans to comprehend God. As the great St. Augustine wrote: "Si comprehendis, non est Deus" meaning "if your idea of God claims to totally comprehend God, then your idea is not God at all."

Funny as a fictional joke. I dunno what 9gag is or if it implies it isn't true; either way, I don't believe that's real. Maybe the 'American' in me is slightly offended. :P