quietdriver3 said:If we were to swap out the phrase how the majority writes for something like how the majority actually lives,
we might finally arrive at a true definition of humanity, wouldn't we? 😛
To be fair, isn't it true that we all harbor this little delusion that we are somehow more refined than we truly are?
It is why you offer a polite nod to your neighbor instead of telling them exactly what you think of them; it is why you show up to the office in a tailored suit rather than sweats; and it is why you would never admit to flipping through a tabloid like Cosmopolitan when you could claim to be deep in the pages of Kafka.
For some people, these pretenses stay within acceptable social boundaries, but for others, well... they don't.
Richard Hernandez13 said:Do you actually know what they’re thinking?
Fascinating, isn't it?
😛
And what makes you such an expert critic?
I have no idea what they actually think; I certainly never claimed to. However, I have observed a certain template used by most writers, and these texts are practically screaming—it isn't about what I truly believe, but rather a desperate attempt to project an image of being lofty, cool, untouchable, intellectually superior, and entirely avant-garde.
Negative?? If I had my way with language, I would be the undisputed queen of critics 😁
You have completely missed the point. From what I can observe, most critics refuse to offer an honest opinion on a film simply because being sincere isn't considered "cool" anymore.
Their primary mission is to maintain their street cred by trashing anything that has been seen by more than a thousand people and fails to meet their arbitrary standards for being avant-garde or incomprehensible. Their goal is to project this image of themselves as unique, unassailable, and somehow intellectually superior beings.
The exact same pattern applies to music—and perhaps slightly less so to literature and painting, provided one ignores the endless pretension surrounding so-called "modern art," performance pieces, conceptualists, and those various happening events.
Is there any true value in approaching a film with a mountain of preconceived notions? Personally, I find that my experience is at its absolute peak when I watch a movie without any prior knowledge or heavy expectations weighing me down. Why clutter the mind with theories and hype before the first frame even rolls?
I recall a time, perhaps fourteen or fifteen years ago, when Dead Poets Society was hailed as this absolute phenomenon. Every girl in my class was practically obsessed with it; it was all anyone could talk about. So, I finally decided to sit down and watch it myself, only to discover that the entire thing was complete garbage.
Perhaps the film itself isn't anything particularly groundbreaking, but had I not gone in expecting to be absolutely mesmerized by pure bliss, I suppose I might have actually enjoyed it to some degree.
On the other hand, I went to see The Village starring Nicole Kidman without having the slightest clue what to expect. I didn't know the title, I had no idea who was in the cast, I couldn't tell you the genre, and I didn't even know the plot. Yet, despite walking in completely blind, I found the film absolutely superb—though I must admit, I was absolutely terrified.
When it comes to critics, they live up to their reputation by clinging to their negativity like a lifeline; if they actually provided anything positive, wouldn't they simply be rebranded as hype men or advertising experts? The fundamental issue lies in the fact that our society is conditioned to hunt for flaws and shortcomings; we have fostered a culture where the more aggressively you tear something down, the more enlightened and intellectually superior you are perceived to be. Is it not curious how we equate cynicism with intelligence? Can any critic worth their salt truly find merit in something so utterly mindless? Is it even possible to offer praise to a project that exists solely to satisfy some hollow, commercial mandate?
Do they really think they can only justify their praise by pointing to films like Citizen Kane or Death in Venice? Is it necessary to retreat into those obscure, forgotten titles that feature nothing but convoluted plots or, worse, absolutely no plot at all? It seems they only find merit in cinema that functions as little more than a visual translation of a stream-of-consciousness novel.
Does one truly measure the depth of their critique by how many convoluted sentence structures they can weave together? Is the perceived sophistication of their argument found solely in the density of obscure vocabulary that remains entirely foreign to the vast majority of the American public? Is it not the ultimate strategy to write with such profound ambiguity that the author's actual intent remains entirely obscured? By ensuring that no one can truly grasp the core message, one achieves an immediate, unassailable status of intellectual superiority. After all, how can anyone dare to offer criticism when they lack the basic capacity to understand the work in the first place? In the end, perhaps even the critic himself failed to grasp his own intended message, but does that truly matter?
velvetpilot212 said:temperature, though I was largely aware that I had brought it upon myself.
Does that sound like magic to you? I am simply suggesting that if you possess the capacity to manifest something negative—which you claim to be able to do—then logically, you hold that same power to manifest something positive. Perhaps you should attempt to read that book; it is readily available for purchase both here in the States and in English.
You’ve made a valid observation. However, when you fall ill simply because they are getting under your skin, that is merely your reaction to your environment. In such an instance, your surroundings are the ones dictating your state of being, whereas the true objective should be to govern your own life through positive thought, rather than being governed by the world around you.
There is an excellent book by Louise Hay titled You Can Heal Your Life. It outlines how individuals, whether consciously or unconsciously, manifest their own illnesses—it even provides a list of ailments alongside the specific thoughts, beliefs, or events that might trigger them. If I recall correctly, this was discussed in the health section previously, though it certainly sparked some heated debates. According to Louise Hay, our negative thoughts, emotions, and belief systems generate various diseases and unfortunate circumstances through their energy; consequently, the primary remedy involves positive thinking and the deliberate selection of a positive environment. Of course, such a concept is somewhat oversimplified.
The core argument is that we actually possess far more agency than we realize—this power resides within our minds and is dictated by how we choose to employ it. By becoming aware of this capability and utilizing our thoughts as a functional tool (since thoughts, words, and actions all carry their own distinct energy), we can improve our lives in myriad ways and achieve true liberation.
Consider, for instance, what someone mentioned earlier regarding how repeating "I have a headache" five times can actually cause it to happen; if one were to instead tell themselves "I feel great" twenty times every morning and evening, they would likely see tangible results within a month.
Tinchi said:That whole idea about mandatory daily water intake is complete nonsense.
I personally know individuals who barely touch water at all—they claim they don't even feel the need—yet they function perfectly well under normal circumstances.
Oh, I am sure they function quite normally for a certain period of time.
I recently read an article by a highly respected American internist who argued that chronic dehydration actually does far more damage to the body than standard lifestyle vices like being overweight or smoking; he posited that a lack of hydration is the primary driver behind the vast majority of modern ailments, ranging from diabetes to cardiovascular disease, kidney issues, and liver dysfunction.
In any given case, anyone who chooses to self-diagnose ought to supplement those efforts with actual medical examinations, lest they find themselves dwelling in a state of false security.
As for my own approach, I believe that one comprehensive annual physical is more than sufficient.
darkviper5 said:Do you honestly believe I would just sit here without feeling anything or noticing a symptom if I weren't actually going to seek medical treatment for it?
That was never my point. My assertion was simply that negative thoughts, anxiety, and constant worry contribute to physical illness; those who remain fixated on their fears and potential ailments tend to fall ill more frequently. Is it not true that when one focuses on the positive, one creates positive experiences?
It isn’t merely a matter of my own personal opinion. The medical community itself has documented this, and there are countless physicians who share this exact perspective. Those articles were authored by professionals, not by me.
Relying on self-examinations can lead to a dangerous sense of false security—so if you are truly concerned, why not schedule a professional check-up with a doctor three times a year?
I visit my physician once a year, and she has told me quite plainly that these self-exams are nothing more than nonsense.
Now, ladies, I realize you’ll probably think I’ve lost my mind and come for my head, but I have recently encountered several perspectives suggesting that performing breast self-exams is an exercise in futility and shouldn't be done at all for various reasons. If you are genuinely concerned about your health, wouldn't it make more sense to leave those examinations to a medical professional?
First, there is the issue of false security; after all, you aren't a trained physician.
Second, isn't it true that we often find exactly what we are looking for? One should focus on maintaining wellness rather than actively hunting for illness. While this might sound like mere philosophy, I truly believe in the power of intention—if I spend my days obsessing over the possibility of cancer and constantly probing my body for issues, am I not essentially inviting that energy into my life? What you focus your energy upon tends to manifest.
For these reasons, I have decided against self-examinations. I would much rather attend my annual physical and let a doctor handle the screening properly.
Honestly, I am genuinely curious about what exactly is going on within our universities and among the faculty lately.
What are these disputes actually about? Why is there such intense resistance coming from them?
During my own time in college, my primary frustration was always the registrar’s office—those incredibly rude, arrogant administrators and the endless lines you had to endure just to speak with them. Nothing ever seemed to be handled efficiently or on the first attempt. You would show up to register for an exam, only to find out the forms weren't available, or the clerk wasn't even at their desk to authorize your paperwork.
Then there were the professors who were seemingly impossible to locate unless you arrived during their strictly designated office hours.
Or consider those instructors who showed up to lectures merely to read aloud from a textbook (seriously!?) or those who spent the entire period cracking jokes and acting as if they were far more important than they actually were.
And let us not forget the ones who designed exams based on everything except the actual assigned reading material.
Not to mention the outdated curriculum and those courses that lack any substance, consisting of nothing but endless divisions and dry definitions.
If you intend to enroll in a private health insurance plan, be aware that they will likely administer a nicotine screening as part of their process. They will analyze your bloodwork to uncover just about everything they're looking for—so, wouldn't it be wiser to simply tell the truth?
I used to have an absolute weakness for fruit yogurts, consuming them in massive quantities—at least one a day, if not more. I even attempted to use them as a substitute for cookies and chocolate. Eventually, I realized they were the primary reason for my weight gain, so now I simply prepare my own fruit yogurt at home.
I purchase deeply frozen fruit—things like raspberries and blackberries—and mix them with plain Chobani yogurt at 2.8% fat. For every two containers of yogurt, I stir in about 100 to 200 grams of fruit (though I switch to fresh fruit during the summer months) and add roughly 10 to 15 grams of vanilla sugar.
I don't quite follow. If anyone wants to spit venom, go ahead; this is a free country. What I was actually referring to was something akin to LOVING ONESELF. Not the vanity, the arrogance, or anything of that nature.
If I may just add one thing—we tend to fixate far too much on our own flaws.
While maintaining a positive outlook certainly wouldn't cause any harm, isn't it true that we primarily direct our attention inward through a negative lens? We find ourselves constantly obsessing over how unattractive, overweight, or clumsy we might be...
The most effective way to lose weight is to simply stop obsessing over it. I have observed this pattern within myself—whenever I manage to push the thought aside, the pounds seem to vanish on their own; however, the moment I fixate on the idea that I *must* lose weight, I either plateau or find myself gaining even more. Regardless of how many different methods one attempts, it seems inevitable. I cannot quite pinpoint what underlying forces are at play here, yet several people have confirmed this exact phenomenon to me.
The less one dwells on food and body mass, the better the results tend to be.
I recall a time when I stayed at a hotel for ten days with full board service. I ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner just as anyone would (including dessert)—since everything was provided for me, I didn't give a single thought to the food itself. My routine was simple: wake up, eat breakfast, hit the beach, have lunch, head back to the beach, eat dinner, and then I was out.
That was the only time I successfully lost weight.
This leads me to believe that the ideal strategy is to plan your meals in advance—ideally prepping them a day early—set a schedule for three or four specific meals at consistent times, and then completely disregard the scale. When the scheduled time arrives, you simply sit down, eat, and move on.
Spending an entire day ruminating on nutrition and weight loss? It achieves absolutely nothing.
To Valentine - you’re complaining about having small breasts? Well, if you drop another 10 pounds, you’ll have even less to show for it.
Back when I was 115 pounds at 5'6", they were practically invisible. Now that I've reached about 125 pounds, they finally look somewhat normal. Even though I’d love to get back down to, say, 117 pounds, I’d just have to accept being completely flat.
This young man started at 66kg while standing 182cm tall, but after just one year, he reached 74kg. He ate extensively—truly, quite a lot. His breakfast was essentially a full lunch, consisting of home-cooked meals, meats, fish, and pasta; he would eat roughly four to five times a day.
Yet, rather than focusing solely on meat, his main priority was grains. He would prepare massive bowls of oatmeal—along with buckwheat and similar varieties—mixing them with milk, raisins, prunes, and dried apricots, consuming the entire portion. Additionally, he consumed plenty of fruit, peanuts, and pistachios. Oh, and he discovered traditional cornmeal mush as well.
He strictly avoided fats, as well as chocolate.
His training regimen was rigorous: push-ups, sit-ups, squats, swimming, and running.
As a result, his arms, shoulders, and chest became significantly more muscular. His legs, however, remained thin.
Ultimately, he gained 8 kilos over the course of a year without adding any unnecessary body fat.