- 2 weeks ago
Children should remain silent, and they are ‘good’ when they’re quiet, but ‘bad’ when they are not, because they are disturbing the adults and causing trouble. This attitude runs through the way people interact with children on every level, and yet, they seem surprised when it turns out that children have been struggling with serious medical problems, or they’ve been assaulted or abused.
The most common response is ‘well why didn’t the child say something?’ or ‘why didn’t the child talk to an adult?’ Adults constantly assure themselves that children know to go to a grownup when they are in trouble, and they even repeat that sentiment to children; you can always come to us, adults tell children, when you need help. Find a trusted adult, a teacher or a doctor or a police officer or a firefighter, and tell that adult what’s going on, and you’ll be helped, and everything will be all right.
The thing is that children do that, and the adults don’t listen. Every time a child tells an adult about something and nothing happens, that child learns that adults are liars, and that they don’t provide the promised help. Children hold up their end of the deal by reporting, sometimes at great personal risk, and they get no concrete action in return. Sometimes, the very adult people tell a child to ‘trust’ is the least reliable person; the teacher is friends with the priest who is molesting a student, the firefighter plays pool with the father who is beating a child, they don’t want to cause a scene.
Or children are accused of lying for attention because they accused the wrong person. They’re told they must be mistaken about what happened, unclear on the specifics, because there’s no way what they’re saying could be true, so and so isn’t that kind of person. A mother would never do that. He’s a respected member of the community! In their haste to close their ears to the child’s voice, adults make sure the child’s experience is utterly denied and debunked. Couldn’t be, can’t be, won’t be. The child knows not to say such things in the future, because no one is listening, because people will actively tell the child to be quiet.
Children are also told that they aren’t experiencing what they’re actually experiencing, or they’re being fussy about nothing. A child reports a pain in her leg after gym class, and she’s told to quit whining. Four months later, everyone is shocked when her metastatic bone cancer becomes unavoidably apparent. Had someone listened to her in the first place when she reported the original bone pain and said it felt different than usual, she would have been evaluated sooner. A child tells a teacher he has trouble seeing the blackboard, and the teacher dismisses it, so the child is never referred for glasses; the child struggles with math until high school, when someone finally acknowledges there’s a problem.
This attitude, that children shouldn’t be believed, puts the burden of proof on children, rather than assuming that there might be something to their statements. Some people seem to think that actually listening to children would result in a generation of hopelessly spoiled brats who know they can say anything for attention, but would that actually be the case? That assumption is rooted in the idea that children are not trustworthy, and cannot be respected. I’m having trouble understanding why adults should be viewed as inherently trustworthy and respectable, especially in light of the way we treat children."
This is especially true of neuro-atypical and disabled children. Like it’s true of all children, but any child whose experience of the world in general is atypical, is going to get it even worse.
- 3 weeks ago
Rest in Peace, Robin Williams.
July 21st, 1951 - August 11th, 2014
Thank you for bringing joy into my childhood and life with your voice and acting. Thank you for your contagious jokes, your wacky impersonations, and amazing acting. Thank you for making my childhood experience better, and thank you for bringing joy to those even though you battled with your own joy. If only you could have known how much you’ve impacted people. Your life work will live on, and you will never be forgotten. I know I won’t forget you. Thank you for helping me whenever I felt sad and having a film for every mood. Gone, but never forgotten.
(via frogmage)Source: disneyyandmore
- 2 months ago
- 4 months ago
THEY HAVE THE ACE ATTORNEY OFFICIAL MANGA IN MY LAW LIBRARY I AM CRYING.
Your honor, something is amiss here!
As you are probably aware, library materials are labeled with barcodes as well as a number to determine their location on the shelf, as per the Dewey Decimal System. The books just to the left of the manga are labeled, as are the DVDs just in view on the lower shelf. Look even further behind these shelves and you’ll see that even those books are labeled!
Ladies and gentlemen of the courtroom, I invite you to take a closer look at the volumes that are, allegedly, part of this law library! Something is missing from the spines, isn’t there?
Where are the bar codes?!
This is a blatant contradiction! The OP is lying— these volumes cannot, therefore, be a part of this library at all! I propose that they simply brought these materials in for the sake of the joke!!
Only focusing on one aspect and not the whole of the issue, are we, Mr. Wright? Typical.
Your honor, if you bring your attention to the books just left of the manga, you’ll notice there’s a book (the second to the left) that also does not have a bar code.
If you examine the picture even closer—particularly the DVDs below—you’ll see that they bear bar codes, but not on the spines. No, they have them on the back and/or front of the DVDs. Of course, this method of labeling and organizing isn’t limited to products of the film industry alone.
Therefore, I’d like to propose that it is entirely possible that the manga books do, in fact, belong to the library!
Wh-WHAAAAT?! You’re kidding!!
(Shoot, he’s got me there… Better think of something fast! Something about the books that sets them apart from—
…! I’ve got it!)
While that may be true, you’ve also overlooked one critical error: the titles of the books! Whether or not your hypothesis regarding the labeling system is correct, these titles aren’t alphabetized correctly! What kind of self-respecting librarian would misplace such vital books?
While it pains me to have to point out something so obvious, I suppose I’ll make an exception for you, Wright.
Clearly, one look at the titles of the books next to the manga is a tell-all of this certain library’s less-than-stellar organization skills. None of the books are in alphabetical order, I’m afraid.
They could very well be alphabetized by author and not title, but it’s a little difficult to be able to decipher that from this single picture, wouldn’t you say?
Furthermore, the manga books themselves are in numerical order, suggesting some kind of system is in place, albeit not a very good one, if the alphabetizing is off.
At the end of the day, it seems like neither of us can draw a clear conclusion from this evidence alone. Your honor, I strongly suggest a recess in which we could investigate the library itself further.
I see the issue here very clearly.
Due to the uncertain nature of this case, we’ll have to postpone this decision until more decisive evidence can be obtained. The court will now take a 15-minute recess.
(W-wait, but I’m not—)
I’ve got some decisive evidence for you, pal!
We investigated further into the photo. Zooming in, you can see a label on the DVD case to the bottom left.
Photo Close-up added to the court record!
As you can see, pal, you can vaguely see the words “Of Toledo Law Library” on the label!
And, considering possibilities of the rest of that label, “University of Toledo" was the first to come to my mind!
A quick search on the University of Toledo’s Online Law Library Database revealed that there ARE the comics pictured in it!
Miles Edgeworth Ace Attorney Investigations volumes 1-4 and Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney volumes 1-5!
And there’s more!
The section these comics are filed under is the “Law in Popular Culture" Section, which matches up with the titles on the rest of the books on that shelf: "Lowering the Bar: Lawyer Jokes & Legal Culture”, “Prime Time Law”, “Lawyers in Your Living Room!" and "Lex Populi”!
Not only is it in the right section, it’s also a documented part of the Law Library’s database!
How’s that for decisive evidence?
(via crankywhitemage)Source: appleseeddrama
- 4 months ago
- 4 months ago
… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.
So you might end up with more donuts.
But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?
A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.
The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.
tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.
Thank you donut side of Tumblr.
This is the highest and best use of conic sections I have ever seen.
I CAN TASTE THE MATH.Source: nimstrz
- 4 months ago