#have you considered you are wrong ?

[hinamie]

mentor

[ghafahey]

I want to stand with you in front of all the Daturma Ox things to come.

JESPER FAHEY and WYLAN HENDRICKS in Shadow and Bone ( 2021- )

[narusasuart]

Insert 'They seem like good friends' - Meme.

Happy Sasunaru Day!

Big shout-out to @freakontour who helped me figure out the style for this and checked that my chicken scrawl's legible.

[drowzydruzy-art]

"The air here is sharp with the scent of metal and freshly-cut lumber. It is here where laborers of Zofia gather to procure the tools for their trades."

[inwhichiramble]

Idk if this is just me, but does it seem like the Hunger Games movies left out most of the stuff about food in general?

Maybe I just noticed this because in my first read I was worried that all of them were cannibals, but like… in the movies it seems like they were never actually that hungry. Like, we know that Katniss and Gale have to hunt, and that Peeta gave Katniss the bread, but a lot of the details about just how hungry they were to get to those choices were just… gone. And when they’re in the Capitol on the Victory Tour, they mention the vomit-inducer but it was more of an offhand thing. What got me especially though is that in Mockingjay Pt. 2, their time with Tigris appears to be much shorter, but also… she doesn’t feed them! And from what I remember that was fairly significant in the books, especially considering the position they were in.

In the books, hunger was the driving force of the vast majority of decisions they made. Katniss literally spent a good chunk of her first games desperately searching for water—Haymitch rewarded their performances with food—Katniss described every single thing she eats and primarily characterizes new places based on their food (the Capitol and District 13 especially). TBOSAS supports this even further when you see how even people in the Capitol were starving in the aftermath of the war—that’s why sponsors were added to the game!

I just—the whole series is literally about starvation and what it means to be human, but the movies just focused on love and war.

[beanghostprincess]

A bit tired of people complaining about Sanji's principle of "not hitting women" being misogynistic when it has been clearly stated multiple times that he does not choose it and it's heavily tied to his trauma and admiration for his dad and respect for women and definitely not from seeing women as somehow weaker than him

[doctorsiren]

he’s mad she ratted him out

[jeeaark]

Shirtless Disaster pt 1 and Shirtless Disaster pt 2

At one point, while decision-making, I tried. real hard. not to have a conflict of interest.

But uuhh...Apparently the game said 'Nah, Greygold's in friggin' love with two people now', So- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is Greygold's life now!

[autisticaradiamegido]

day 147

psychically induced chronic illness squad

[once-in-a-blood-moon]

Okay, so what if you propose to Solomon before he gets the chance to propose to you? Like obviously, he'd been thinking long and hard about what kind of ring to pick out, where to do it, what to say, yadda yadda... But then while you're *ahem* supervising him in the kitchen one evening, you get down on one knee and propose to him instead.

Poor guy did not see it coming, at all. Initially, he thought you fell or hurt yourself, so he scrambled around to check on you only to see you smiling up at him with the biggest heart eyes. With a gentle flourish of magic, you make the box appear in your hand before opening it to offer him the ring inside.

He can hardly believe it. Him? You want to propose to him? And you beat him to it? He's both impressed and deeply honored. Your little magic stunt made him proud as your teacher while also making the already special moment a million times more so.

Solomon's not one to get emotional. The only time he's ever cried to you was when you and the rest of Purgatory Hall tricked him with that overpowered onion...but this is different. He feels safe to cry as you spout to him a beautiful, heartfelt speech - feeling every letter being etched into his heart and every syllable committed to memory.

He falls to his knees, reaching out to hold you while whispering as many shaky "yeses" as he can muster through his sobs. He can't stop repeating himself like a broken record, beyond excited for this next step in your relationship, touched that you want to keep him as yours.

Once he's calmed down enough through your hushes, kisses, and gentle touches, you pull back to take his hand into yours. Slowly and carefully, you slip the ring onto his finger.

Solomon just stares at it with his heart in his throat, noticing how it shines in the light, how it fits him perfectly (both aesthetically and in size), and how it feels right occupying what he always assumed would be an empty finger. You've given him the gift of hope and the gift of love in the time he's known you. And here you are giving him even more...your life.

And in return, he's gladly and readily giving you his.

[tblsomedoodles]

The Preferable Alternative - part 14

Start - previous - next

rare 6 pg update! b/c the pacing was better if i stopped the scene there.

Leo: That was weird.......ANYWAYS!

: )

[here-comes-the-moose]

Hunter to Howzer: Excuse me you can’t talk to him like that.

Howzer, angry at Crosshair: Why not?

Hunter: He’s baby.

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Response to your reblog before I peace out.

The argument of the immorality of abortion is built on the assumption that life inherently has value. Lives do not have any inherent value, because they are the result of millions of years of naturally occurring processes. These natural processes do not have any inherent moral value; attempting to assign one would involve invoking some sort of "god" that exists beyond the material, observable, provable world we live in, rather than some logical, clear, and distinct notion such as the one attempted to be shown. For these reasons, abortion is morally neutral.

On that note, the morality and legality of abortion are thereby a human notion, with a logically valid -though not logically sound- argument in either direction. The argument presented says that "no human life should be purposefully ended by another human being. Because that's murder." In short, they believe that murder is necessarily and inherently immoral. That's all it is though, a belief: There is no wholly logical ground to stand on with regards to murder being universally bad in all scenarios, because of its' moral neutrality as I proved above. In other words, the morality and legality of aborting a fetus is wholly subjective.

"Do you actually have an issue with my argument that a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder[?]"

Yes I do. A fetus is not survivable beyond the confines of the womb for quite some time; in fact, not until right before the fetus is due to become a baby and be born, that ever-reliable 8 month mark after insemination. As such, considering the fetus is unable to survive without constant connection to the pregnant person, it stands to reason that this is an extension of their body at this point, rather than a separate entity. If one intended to claim it still was at the stages before a fetus can survive independently, then consider this implication: Parasites rely on being attached to living beings in order to survive. This includes humans. Therefore, following the earlier claim that "a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder," a parasite attached to a human is also a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder. Therefore, it is more reasonable to claim that for most of the pregnancy cycle, a fetus is not a separate entity from the pregnant person, and by extension, "ending its' life" is not murder.

"Babies are people, too, and have the same right to life as an adult."

This is true! Because babies are not fetuses.

Just thought you would want to read this, because anti-choice rhetoric can be very harmful in shutting down the agency of pregnant people and their ability to dictate their own lives. Knowing the direction that restrictions of this kind have gone in the past, those restrictions will not stop after the illegalization of abortion. Please consider who this harms and who this helps before spreading closed-minded rhetoric of that kind.

Either morality (God-given or otherwise, because there are many secular arguments against abortion) exists or it doesn't. There is a line in the sand or there is not. If you truly intend to argue that lives have no inherent value beyond what we assign them, then not only are the two of us operating in completely irreconcilable ethical frameworks, but yours collapses under its own weight; harm, agency, all these things mattering hinges on the idea that humans and (to a lesser extent) other forms of life have inherent worth, inherent dignity, that causing the former and undermining the latter are wrong in and of themselves.

If there is no objective standard on which to hang our arguments, then everything becomes subjective; all that matters is what we value on a social and individual level. And if that's the case, why would I ever bother to value the opinions of you, a stranger on the internet, over my own? It would be unfair and wrong of me not to consider other positions, to try to see things from another person's point of view, but why should I care about fairness or rightness?

Equating an embryo or fetus to a parasite is fallacious and incorrect. Ignoring that by the scientific definition parasites have to be a different species from the host, and that a pregnancy is a two-way street that also provides benefits for the mother, embryos and fetuses are simply living out the natural development cycle that literally every other human being on the planet has gone through. The biological principles at play in parasitism and human reproduction are fundamentally different.

I could keep going. I could match your arguments with my own about how anti-life rhetoric is a slippery slope to eugenics, about how I could just as easily twist your arguments around to make social parasites out of the elderly and disabled; but in this case it's pointless, because I can't even get you to sit down and agree upon simple principles like "human lives have value" and "murder is bad" or even "there is such a thing as objective morality."

[anxiously-sidequesting]

i haven't played past arc 3 and forgot most of my playthrough so i may be incorrect about this but it's so interesting how like only two people in the entire game so far have ever acknowledged the unfair situation the wizard has been put in, and those people were Motherfucking Morganthe and Motherfucking Grandfather Spider

[doppel-dean-er]

I think it would be really funny if Abed becomes a (mediocre) famous filmmaker and he gets cancelled on twitter for "queerbaiting" and he's like "queerbaiting? this movie is about me and Troy, and we're just friends." then he looks at the callout posts and they're just pointing out behaviors that actually exist in Troy and Abed's friendship that Abed perceived as platonic (but lets be honest here) and being like "see??? that's clearly meant to trick us into thinking they're gay."

anyway that leads to Abed having a queer awakening and makes him even more yearny

[secretlythatsme]

ALSO for your angst dpxdc consideration: danny would absolutely still be considered a meta. the term "meta" is used in a very vague, umbrella way where basically anyone who isn't a normal human is a meta. so even without the proper meta gene, danny would still be considered a meta by basically everyone (especially bruce). canonically speaking, danny isn't just a normal booooo kinda ghost - he also has some insane powers (like his ghost wail!) so he'd be considered a person with superpowers and therefore a meta.

so when you're writing dpxdc fics, please consider this! danny would be a meta in the dcu! kick that kid out of gotham!!!!