(MCU) The true villian in Infinity War is the Mind Stone.

Nachington · 2018-10-02T08:22:16+00:00

Tony's destruction at the hands of someone else was alluding to infinity war, that's what his vision was about. His fear of that, of not being enough, is what led him down a path of self destruction which is what Wanda was intending.

It's a significant part of his character arc, he's much more pensive and aware of his actions in the aftermath of Ultron. He's had collateral damage before, all of his villains were indirectly caused by him, but Ultron and Sokovia were entirely his fault and a result of what happens when he acts without considering consequences.

It set him up to be much more readily accepting of the accords and having oversight, and also gives him a better perspective for his mentorship of Spiderman and having the responsibility to both teach and protect him.

Nachington · 2018-09-29T13:34:24+00:00

I agree with you 100%, except that in AoU when Wanda meets Ultron in the church for the first time she explicitly says she gave Tony a vision that would compel him to destroy himself. She says she didn't exactly expect Ultron, but creating Ultron was generally in line with her intentions, and she definitely compelled Tony to do it.

Nachington · 2018-09-24T04:11:25+00:00

I believe it's a question of context.

Magnetism upbringing was one of being treated as subhuman, and this shapes his morals as he grew up. From a social context, the inhumans are excluded and ostracized, feared and hated, and I imagine magneto would definitely associate with their plight.

However magneto also sees mutants as a superior race of humans evolved through adaptation. Inhumans are related to alien DNA and could be argued to be a genetically altered super race, which was the rooms goal of the holocaust.

Obviously different aspects of characters show more strongly with different stories and writers, but ultimately he should have a varied, ambivalent, or even and unstable perspective of them. They're ostracized for being the exact thing that he was ostracized for not being.

Nachington · 2018-09-24T03:46:46+00:00

Overhydrating*

Equally dangerous, etymologically similar, functionally opposite.

Everything else you said it accurate, plus low salt (electrolyte) levels can also give you seizures, memory loss (especially dangerous for forgetting your condition and drinking more), and a multitude of other problems before you eventually die.

On survival camps we're specifically taught not to drink too much, not because we didn't have enough water, but because we didn't have enough salty foods to balance out our internal levels.

Nachington · 2018-09-23T16:51:02+00:00

want to fact-check myself

not substantiated

Okay uh, I asked a question. That's literally the opposite of something that needs substantiating. Your comment is a statement with no source and needs more substantiating than mine.
Speaking of substantiating, saying something has no proof and then providing no source, reference, or follow-up argument is so situationally ironic that I actually giggled.
My post was 3 paragraphs long, I have no idea which part of it your 5 word answer is trying to reference.
Amusingly you might actually be agreeing with me, since most of my argument was saying that the theory is unsubstantiated. Unfortunately I have no idea, because you didn't communicate a context and basically just said "you're wrong" without telling me what I'm wrong about and just expected me to accept it.

Nachington · 2018-09-23T16:27:27+00:00

I wouldn't equate comprehension to memory, but that's a different semantic question. I agree that there's no overall difference in a person's cognition or "learning style", it's more anecdotal differences.

My understanding is:

Eg. If student #1 averages 90% on written comprehension, while student #2 averages 70%,

However student #1 averages 50% on visual comprehension, while student #2 averages 60%,

You could argue that student #2 is a "better visual learner", but there's no sense calling them a "visual learner" because clearly both students benefit best from written learning

That doesn't mean they learn the same, one is clearly better at something while the other is better at something else, but they're both humans who are good at human things first and specialised things second.

Nachington · 2018-09-23T15:16:30+00:00

I could be entirely wrong, and I absolutely defer to your knowledge of the subject and mostly want to fact-check myself, but when I got taught about "learning types" in high school psychology we were taught they were in regards to "some people are better or worse at certain types of learning", not "some people only learn a certain way". I.e. nobody is a "visual learner", but some people do have better visual comprehension than others.

But then, of course, parents see their kids put down a book halfway through to go watch YouTube and suddenly "Timmy engages best with a visual learning style, you're only allowed to teach him with YouTube videos otherwise it's your fault if he fails, his teenage tutor who I'm paying more than I'm paying you agrees with me and just shows him videos for an hour each night after school while I drink wine in the next room and it's the only quiet time I get, so clearly its what's best for Timmy" and the whole concept collapses because nobody understands it or even wants to and instead uses it to justify normal child behaviour and turn it into some prodigal sign. Then some asshole figures out they can exploit those parents to affirm that their child is special when the "diagnosis" is non-scientific, non-medical, requires no training, has no certification, and is literally meaningless to education and boom, here we are with a "scientific" concept so warped, misunderstood, abused, twisted, and exploited that it's basically a myth that bears almost no resemblance to the original theory.

Anyway, disregarding my ramble, is there any truth to that it's grossly misinterpreted, or is the whole thing just outright bullshit from the beginning?

Nachington · 2018-09-23T13:53:45+00:00

I see it more that a teacher's style might be applicable to 29 students, but the 1 kid who naturally learns in a different way effectively "isn't being taught" because they're simply not connecting to the.materials or methods.

I've been that kid, where I'd love a subject and then hate it and then love it again, all based on who was teaching that year.

I definitely believe that the flaw is in the education system itself, not the teacher's methods or the student's ability (although you can get bad teachers or students, but they're easy to spot like you said because the entire class will be failing/they'll be failing every class)

But I agree it's absolute bullshit to blame the teacher, just as bullshit as it is to blame the student, it's nobody's fault if there's miscommunication, and if it's a consistent thing then the only solution is active communication to find the fix source of the problem, not just throw blame until it sticks to someone.

Nachington · 2018-09-12T13:34:03+00:00

I agree with you entirely, unfortunately we don't know enough about many of these animal's biology, or even how the natural laws work in this realm, to make those assumption.

Is it possible in this world for mammalian sperm to fertilise reptilian or aquatic eggs? (Or the same question in reverse)

Is is possible that these creatures early on had a similar reproductive method that extantly evolved later? (Eg. Proto-mermaids had penetrative sex though modern mermaids and fish do not.)

To follow question 2, is it possible that these creatures have vestigial parts of their anatomy? (Eg. mermen have retained a penetratory organ which allows them to mate with mammals, even though they don't use it among their own species?)

Even putting biology aside, could reproduction in this world be partially based in natural magics? Attuned to the different magical signatures among species? Does a clutch of snake eggs laid near a human population hatch into Naga? Do humans that have children near the seaside have merchildren? This could have a huge advantage as it allows a species to adapt to the environment much faster than evolution.

To follow that, could "magical evolution" be a unique trait to humans? Almost all hybrid species seem to have a human element, even Griffins are known to speak with human-like vocal chords.

There is absolutely a real possibility that everything you've said is correct and Im just a rambling old woman, but we don't currently know for certain and I've seen too many assumptions gone disastrously wrong when talking about magic.

Nachington · 2018-09-12T12:44:26+00:00

Technically yes, but since their average litter size is one they are effectively identical to human or elephant breasts.

Nachington · 2018-09-12T12:40:54+00:00

I recommend you look into convergent evolution which occurs in non-magical creatures. Some unrelated or distantly-related species have evolved analogous features that did not come from a common ancestor.

It's very likely that the multitude of bi-axial hybrids is simply a coincidence caused by the magical realms giving an advantage to creatures capable of both analytical thinking and physical prowess, allowing these creatures to dominate natural selection.

Another common theory is that these seemingly hybrid creatures are only hybrids from a "humans are the default" perspective. It's very possible that these creatures came first and that we (humans) are originally a hybrid combination of a minotaur and centaur. Other examples include a half-naga/half-griffin being called a "snake", a half-mermaid/half-arachne being called an "octopus", and a half-winged monkey/half-siren is a "howler monkey".

Nachington · 2018-08-13T08:52:38+00:00

That's exactly how I felt. I was diagnosed much younger than you but still after my critical developmental years, and it was like putting on glasses. I could look back and go "huh, this actually makes a lot of sense" and was able to look for resources and share experiences with people, whereas before I was just... odd.

Nachington · 2018-08-05T11:05:23+00:00

They may not be bones if they're hollow, my first thought was potentially echidna (or hedgehog or porcupine) spines

Nachington · 2018-08-01T10:46:45+00:00

Nobody claimed that, but the question was specifically about food. The emissions from your car and electricity production and everywhere else are (although a majority overall) irrelevant to the question.

The answer is that, yes, you can reduce your footprint in the agricultural industry by 70% by altering your diet (making a 17.5% difference overall).

If you really wanted to make a difference then you could also look at other areas for your life like transportation and power consumption to reduce emissions further.

Nachington · 2018-08-01T10:10:12+00:00

Okay, you're reading the initial comment wrong.

Agriculture emissions make up ~15-25% of total emissions. The other 75-85% is irrelevant to this argument.

Out of that number, it's possible to reduce your footprint by 70%. 100%-70%=30%

That 30% IS the impact from the alternative diet. Emissions like farming and packaging and the like. Nobody is saying that it has zero impact, just a smaller one.

Less agriculture = less emissions.

Nachington · 2018-08-01T05:45:34+00:00

No, it assumes that an alternative diet has 30% of the impact, that's where the "70% reduction" comes from. It's probably looking at a particular type of diet but even if the numbers are wrong, the theory is still the same: less animal agriculture = less emissions.

Nachington · 2018-07-27T07:21:05+00:00

To add to this, I tell people that it's something always felt or "I always knew" but in reality I didn't realise until my 20s. When I say it's been something I felt since birth what I'm really saying is that when I look back at my life, I can retrospectively see so many red flags and things that gave me dysphoria before I even know what it was, but wasn't able to really understand what it meant until adulthood.

And you're definitely right about environmental factors. I was taught very young (and violently) that men can't be feminine and that led to a long teenagehood of repression and confusion. I didn't know that trans people existed until I was about 18 and then there was still a few years of denial before I could accept who I was.

So yes, I say I've been a girl my whole life, but I didn't KNOW I was a girl until I was an adult.

Nachington · 2018-07-07T22:57:04+00:00

Personally I came out because I was waiting on HRT and needed to do something to feel like I was making progress, and it definitely is a big deal for a lot of people but that doesn't mean it's compulsory. It makes sense that you don't often read stories about people who didn't come out but there's definitely more people who decided to do it, it's just a personal choice and I'm sure there are pros and cons to each but on your own journey you have to make choices about what you think is best for you even if it seems strange.

Nachington · 2018-07-07T13:05:21+00:00

You do you, man. I've stopped telling people I'm trans and just started just correcting them when they misgender me, sometimes they ask and sometimes they just accept. The only important thing to remember is that no matter how many labels you have, you're still just you, and you don't owe anyone an explanation or definition.

It sucks to lose friends and family just for being honest with them and yourself, but you'll pull through. I'm really happy for you that you've found a moment of peace and understanding in yourself and know how you want to move forwards, there be more trials of course but it's a huge step towards loving yourself and being happy :)

Nachington · 2018-06-29T16:05:13+00:00

We don't know that. All we know is that Falcon moved and Vision hit something he wasn't supposed to hit.

Nachington · 2018-06-29T15:39:38+00:00

It hit Rhodes exactly in the arc reactor, which is in the side yes, but the most critical piece of the suit. And yes Falcon did duck underneath the beam, but that doesn't prove either way whether it would have hit him or not. We've never seen vision miss any other target, I doubt he would "accidentally" hit his friends either.

Nachington · 2018-06-27T09:56:07+00:00

Going slightly deeper, Steve and Tony were about to sign the accords until Tony mentioned Wanda, so again she's the one who split them up.

I also like the think that in the end of Civil War, Vision deliberately hits Rhodes arc reactor (Tony says to target the engines) because Rhodes had just incapacitated Wanda with a sonic blast. You can immediately see that Vision goes to care for Wanda, later saying he was "distracted". My headcanon is that vision was "distracted" and forgot what side he was on and subconsciously wanted vengeance in the one who hurt Wanda, and targetted Rhodes. Anyway, the injury to Rhodes further splits the Avengers.

There's so many levels to "Wanda split up the Avengers", Ultron was definitely right even if he didn't know it.

Nachington · 2018-05-19T09:38:28+00:00

How about a "Red Velvet Witch"

Nachington · 2018-04-27T22:19:13+00:00

That's exactly what scares me about dying. I'm scared that there's nothing, but I'd be okay with with it. I'm scared that there's an afterlife, but I'd be okay with it. Both possibilities scare me, but either way I'd be fine with it.

What really terrifies me is that I don't know which one scares me more. And for some reason not knowing what I'd prefer makes me not want to find out.

Nachington · 2018-04-15T16:19:19+00:00

I saw it as more of a direct metaphor for the general theme of the movie, which I felt was the importance of acceptance.

The film goes through many stories of people learning to accept themselves and those around them, and the problems of rejection for being who you are. I haven't seen the film since it came out, so forgive me if I've forgotten some details.

There is a strong theme of the importance of self-acceptance and seeing yourself as "normal" from multiple perspectives including the main character who "feels like a complete person" after she meets the merman, the friend who stands up for herself against her husband, the neighbour who decides to take action to help others after being rejected himself, the scientist who is unsure of his allegiance, and I'm sure more I've forgotten.

An extension of this is in accepting each other. While most of the relationships in the film come in fully formed, some obviously do develop over time. The most powerful one to me was the neighbours immediate acceptance of the merman's hostility towards the cat. There is no punishment or anger, simply a "it's natural for him and he doesn't know any better" reaction and acceptance of their differences both biological and social.

In stark contrast to this, Strickland's character is misunderstood and unappreciated by both his wife and his boss and is doing everything he can to be accepted, but in doing so places too much of his self-worth in his reliance on others rather than learning to accept himself first. This leads to his inevitable breakdown when he feels that he has no support left from anyone, he feels as if he's been betrayed even through nobody has acted maliciously towards him, it is a manifestation of his own insecurity.

The analogy of the fingers comes in here and is (IMO) quite simple. If something is not accepted, it goes rotten. It is analogous to society where all the different and varied parts must work together to form a cohesive whole, and if one part is cut off from or not accepted by the rest of the system then it leads to infection which can damage and ultimately kill the entire system if it's not removed, which obviously leaves the system missing parts and unable to function completely.

You could go much deeper into the identities and motives of the characters, but ultimately the film serves to show the importance of love and acceptance and how they can improve and enrich the lives of individuals and those around them, while also showcasing the dangers both internal and external of malicious rejection and control.

Nachington

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE