many fewer than those who would oppose it.

I really think there aren't people in the world who won't be pulled in to THAT psycho-cult if they didn't intend to in the first place.

with all of the massacres going on out there I'm surprised that no one just popped into the WBC on sunday and started a mass shooting.

Imo, if someone was to kill a big group of the WBC they wouldn't become martyrs, I agree the only people that will support them after their death will only be the already extreme wbc'ers

Pretty much anyone who isn't in the WBC hates them. It get me angry that they'll come to a funeral with a mourning family and harass/troll everyone.

Pahuehue

But what about the other vapours: Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen Chloride (Hydrochloric acid) and Hydrogen Fluoride (assuming there's enough of it to be harmful).

Shut up bitch, you just got scienced TWICE. Man up and take it.

Oh no! I'm being inquisitive! Someone stop me!

As I said, those are usually only released in lethal amounts from volcanoes capable of producing pyroclastic flow.

There's a reason why plenty of tourists are capable of walking around slow lava flow without being poisoned and dying horribly. Eating hotdogs cooked over the lava won't be any worse than breathing in the air near it.

Yeees?

thanks, I've been wondering where that was from for a while now.

No problem.

is that the name of the series?

Yes.

thanks, I've been wondering where that was from for a while now.

No problem.

Contextual, it can be a strong emotion for change, which can be good, but not when it helps no one, or rather just a select few people. There is empathy to consider here, I would rather people not feel discriminated against at the risk of change, but hating things that cause us nothing but harm, now that's hatred used to move people for change, in a good way.

Why don't racists have the right to discriminate mentally, in the same way someone is allowed to discriminate mentally against someone who is particularly homeless, unattractive, or otherwise disarming?

I'm not saying that Racists have the right to physically harm or discriminate against another person, what I'm asking is, if you have a right to hate racists, why don't racists have a right to hate too? Because they don't hate what you hate? Because you hate them BECAUSE of your hatred?

Hate is hate, context does not change what it is, only how it's applied. Hating for a good cause is not a good thing. By this logic, then Hitler's hatred was a good hatred, because as we've already established, he would've created an essential utopia. You claim that hating things that cause us nothing but harm is good, but what Hitler would've done would've caused a lot of good, as well as bad. Consider that he revitalized the German economy from millions in war debt in the time he lead the nation alone, so by your logic, Hitler, or the Nazi Regime, are not causes worth hating. I personally believe that they are causes worth hating, because what he did was extremely immoral. It wasn't immoral because of racism though, it was immoral because he killed people.

Racism breeds hate, homosexuality or the freedom of it, breeds love.

So no.

Is hatred bad?

Contextual, it can be a strong emotion for change, which can be good, but not when it helps no one, or rather just a select few people. There is empathy to consider here, I would rather people not feel discriminated against at the risk of change, but hating things that cause us nothing but harm, now that's hatred used to move people for change, in a good way.

Why don't racists have the right to discriminate mentally, in the same way someone is allowed to discriminate mentally against someone who is particularly homeless, unattractive, or otherwise disarming?

I'm not saying that Racists have the right to physically harm or discriminate against another person, what I'm asking is, if you have a right to hate racists, why don't racists have a right to hate too? Because they don't hate what you hate? Because you hate them BECAUSE of your hatred?

Hate is hate, context does not change what it is, only how it's applied. Hating for a good cause is not a good thing. By this logic, then Hitler's hatred was a good hatred, because as we've already established, he would've created an essential utopia. You claim that hating things that cause us nothing but harm is good, but what Hitler would've done would've caused a lot of good, as well as bad. Consider that he revitalized the German economy from millions in war debt in the time he lead the nation alone, so by your logic, Hitler, or the Nazi Regime, are not causes worth hating. I personally believe that they are causes worth hating, because what he did was extremely immoral. It wasn't immoral because of racism though, it was immoral because he killed people.

Better to teach unity then to exterminate people who do not fit into the majority.

Regardless of whether it would be better, eradicating a race is racist, and support for it also is racist, even if it is true what you say..

That's true, but consider this next;


In the same way that a homosexual has a right to be homosexual, shouldn't a racist have the right to be racist? They don't have the right to insult or persecute others in the same way that a homosexual can't insult or persecute a heterosexual.

Do people have a right to be hateful, if they also recognize and respect the fact that they can not mistreat people as a result of that hatred?

Racism breeds hate, homosexuality or the freedom of it, breeds love.

So no.

Is hatred bad?

Contextual, it can be a strong emotion for change, which can be good, but not when it helps no one, or rather just a select few people. There is empathy to consider here, I would rather people not feel discriminated against at the risk of change, but hating things that cause us nothing but harm, now that's hatred used to move people for change, in a good way.

Why don't racists have the right to discriminate mentally, in the same way someone is allowed to discriminate mentally against someone who is particularly homeless, unattractive, or otherwise disarming?

I'm not saying that Racists have the right to physically harm or discriminate against another person, what I'm asking is, if you have a right to hate racists, why don't racists have a right to hate too? Because they don't hate what you hate? Because you hate them BECAUSE of your hatred?

Hate is hate, context does not change what it is, only how it's applied. Hating for a good cause is not a good thing. By this logic, then Hitler's hatred was a good hatred, because as we've already established, he would've created an essential utopia. You claim that hating things that cause us nothing but harm is good, but what Hitler would've done would've caused a lot of good, as well as bad. Consider that he revitalized the German economy from millions in war debt in the time he lead the nation alone, so by your logic, Hitler, or the Nazi Regime, are not causes worth hating. I personally believe that they are causes worth hating, because what he did was extremely immoral. It wasn't immoral because of racism though, it was immoral because he killed people.

That is a definition of racist.

The*

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning

Na man, if one is riding a unicycle that is some serious shit. Balance and leg power, I wouldn't fuck with him.

You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.

Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.

But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning

" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.

Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.

You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.

Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.

But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning

So that's why we had to learn cursive writing!

I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.

I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.

" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.

Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.

You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.

Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.

But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning

No it's not. Visually, third person is ideal but an emotional account is impossible from third person. First person is to indicate emotion and direct characterization. Catcher, as a day in the life novel, is solely an emotional and character novel.

Actually yes, it is. To properly convey the emotions of the main character in a manner that appeals to a wide audience without losing any since of individuality in the individual that you are writing for is incredibly hard, and the usual output is that most first person novels end up in two camps:

Generic Blob Man goes through some tough shit where he does only what the majority of people would do in a situation and without any real self reflection beyond what can be fished out of the first two feet of what is an otherwise deep swimming pool.

And Maincharacter McPersonpants who is so clearly they're own character that despite being IN their head you can't figure out why the hell they are doing anything that they do other than that they seem to desire to be some kind of a person, and as wonderful as it is that they are well rounded and not just a faceless portal in to the realm of the story, they are also such opinionated asswipes that you really don't feel like you're able to relate to them, unless you're that one specific guy that's just like them.


The best kind of First Person Writing is directly in the middle, and Catcher in the Rye leans more towards the second than the first, in that the main character is purposefully dumb and unlikeable, reducing the audience of people that relate to him as those who consider or considers their past selves as dumb and unlikeable.

Also, third person is all fine and good, but I prefer Omniscient the best. You get the same emotional account, without any of the aggravation of first person.

I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.

I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.

" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.

Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.

You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.

Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.

But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning

yeah but you don't get the satisfaction of instilling fear of castration with a hot knife.
either way, lesbian or no, I hope to raise my daughter in a way where she won't let herself end up with a shitty boy/girlfriend. i'm sure that's easier said than done, however.

You don't understand first person do you.

I understand first person perfectly well, but it wasn't enjoyable. It's very hard to write well in first person.

No it's not. Visually, third person is ideal but an emotional account is impossible from third person. First person is to indicate emotion and direct characterization. Catcher, as a day in the life novel, is solely an emotional and character novel.

Actually yes, it is. To properly convey the emotions of the main character in a manner that appeals to a wide audience without losing any since of individuality in the individual that you are writing for is incredibly hard, and the usual output is that most first person novels end up in two camps:

Generic Blob Man goes through some tough shit where he does only what the majority of people would do in a situation and without any real self reflection beyond what can be fished out of the first two feet of what is an otherwise deep swimming pool.

And Maincharacter McPersonpants who is so clearly they're own character that despite being IN their head you can't figure out why the hell they are doing anything that they do other than that they seem to desire to be some kind of a person, and as wonderful as it is that they are well rounded and not just a faceless portal in to the realm of the story, they are also such opinionated asswipes that you really don't feel like you're able to relate to them, unless you're that one specific guy that's just like them.


The best kind of First Person Writing is directly in the middle, and Catcher in the Rye leans more towards the second than the first, in that the main character is purposefully dumb and unlikeable, reducing the audience of people that relate to him as those who consider or considers their past selves as dumb and unlikeable.

Also, third person is all fine and good, but I prefer Omniscient the best. You get the same emotional account, without any of the aggravation of first person.

I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.

I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.

" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.

Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.

You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.

Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.

But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning