Folic Acid
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
—
SCENE 1
Setting:
Day 5 of Film Week. Theatre seats. Discussion after the film, The Namesake.
Girl raises hand and receives microphone. After a long introduction, she says something along the lines of, “… however, my question is, I can understand why the Indian boy he falls in love with the American girl, you know, because she is blonde and White.. but why does she does that? Why does she fall in love with the Indian boy? He is Indian.”
African-American man and Asian-American man in the seats in front of us are offended.
Host asks if anyone wants to answer the girl’s question. Guy raises hand and is handed the microphone. His answer? “Because he is not really Indian. He was born in American and lived his whole life there. It’s not like he was born in India and lived half his life there before coming to America.”
Great answer. Couldn’t have said it any better.
SCENE 2
Setting:
Lunch invitation. The sun has set. Great company. Great weather.
Discussion revolves around heels and whether or not they are unhealthy. Personally, I can’t live without them. I don’t care much for risks that are unlikely. Example used to develop the argument is smoking. I say that I am not for or against smoking.
Reaction? *GASP* “Ana kent a7ebich gabel la etgouleen hal kelma.”
I explain that I don’t care much for smoking. If a loved one decides to smoke, I would advise them but only because I care for them and not because of whatever act it is that is harming them.
My argument is refused. It is a shade of grey. I never realized I had to make it either black or white for it to be accepted.
1N.
wrote on 23 December 2009 at 17:44
Yeah, I was totally shocked when I heard that girl. I couldn’t even believe my ears. I’m glad ppl spoke up.
A lot of people prefer to choose black or white. I’d go with blue ;P
2Vinnie
wrote on 24 December 2009 at 9:12
Why is it titled Folic Acid?
I didn’t see the movie but it totally shows total ignorance from the girl who asked the question. Bas yallah, she doesn’t know that not all indians are 9ibyan 3ind ahalha
2nd Scene: LOL
Life is full of gray isn’t it
3Amethyst
wrote on 24 December 2009 at 14:18
N.
I wasn’t surprised, but the guy who answered just disappointed me. I doubt he cares what I think though.
And I’d go with purple;p
Vinnie
Why not Folic Acid?
She doesn’t understand that emotions have got nothing to do with race.
It is. Now, I would believe you truly believed that if you had just accepted by argument for what it is the other day;p
4Anonymous
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 1:30
i believe religion is a personal matter so i usually refrain from discussing it, however in this case, heels have been cited as “un-Islamic” on some counts. google it.
secondly, you would stop someone you care about from smoking because it is indeed harmful – you don’t want someone you care about to indulge in a harmful activity – so the two facets; caring and harmful, go hand in hand, don’t they?
5Amethyst
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 2:55
Anonymous
I have actually heard quite a bit about that; the reason being it attracts unnecessary attention to a woman. Sigh.
They are related, yes. However, what if I am a person who smokes, and I care enough to advise loved ones not to smoke when they do. Besides hypocrisy, this wouldn’t make me for or against smoking. I would be somewhere in between, a gray area. So, I disagree. Caring about a person does not mean that I care about the act. Therefore, the “two facets; caring and harmful,” do not go hand in hand for me.
6Anonymous
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:05
the practise what you preach ideaology doesn’t quite apply to all loved ones; there are some one loves more than oneself. one might be smoking, for example, but would love another enough to advise them against it. it’s not hypocrisy just unadulterated love.
caring about a person would entail caring about the act when it comes to that person, not necessarily caring about the act itself per se.
7Anonymous
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:08
P.S.:- i didn’t imply caring and harmful go hand in hand in the sense you took it to mean sweetie.
8Amethyst
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:14
Anonymous
“caring about a person would entail caring about the act when it comes to that person, not necessarily caring about the act itself per se”
Exactly, but that doesn’t apply to all people. Another thing that has exceptions is loving loved ones more than loving oneself.
So, if one doesn’t love the person or care about them enough, not caring about smoking as an act regardless of whether or not a loved one smokes stands alone.
Also, caring about a loved one harming her/himself is just caring about the person harming her/himself regardless of the harmful act. It does not really matter how they’re doing it when it comes to that, whether they’re smoking, drinking, or dancing about on the street naked.
9Anonymous
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:18
i didn’t contest that in the first place, but the elaboration was interesting, redundant as it may have been.
10Amethyst
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:18
Anonymous
To answer your P.S.
I don’t understand what you’re implying. Maybe you should explain it a little more. However, caring about someone should be whether or not harmful is present.
11Anonymous
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:21
all i sought to do with the latter part of my very first comment was bring a different perspective into light; an extension of sorts on what you already stated, if you will. i didn’t mean caring about a loved one enough to advise them against a harmful act would mean you disapprove of the act itself; that’s what you construed it seems. i meant caring about someone and dissuading them from all that is harmful run tantamount to each other, that’s all.
12Amethyst
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:26
Anonymous
I understand that completely. What I am trying to point out is that there are some who would not dissuade a loved one or someone they care about from a harmful act for many possible reasons.
The whole point of this whole discussion was to prove that a shady gray area exists. I am taking that further by taking your arguments further.
Btw, I wouldn’t want you to feel discouraged because of this back and forth. This is something I welcome in this space.
13Anonymous
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:29
“there are some who would not dissuade a loved one or someone they care about from a harmful act for many possible reasons.”
i couldn’t agree more with that. that said, the fact remains that there are some who would, for innumerable reasons, as well.
i’m a strong upholder of the existence of gray areas myself, there’s zero discouragement here. keep up the good work, and write more often!
14Amethyst
wrote on 26 December 2009 at 3:34
Anoymous
Cheers
Will do. I’m back energized after a long break!
15eshda3wa
wrote on 28 December 2009 at 0:07
folic acid
mabrooooook
16Vinnie
wrote on 28 December 2009 at 9:20
If, god forbid, your other half resorted to smoking… What would be your reaction?
(j/k)
there’s quite the difference in tone
I recognize the existance of shades of gray in life of course, I’ve been around the block indulging in vices myself, and I do have lots of friends who smoke. So its not a houlier than thou attitude. there’s a dewannnya of really good friends of mine that I can’t even visit anymore cause everyone there but me smokes. I like them very much, but it does hurt me to just stay in that place
So, no what your saying is all wrong
btw your exact statement that day was “Who told you that am against smoking? Am not against smoking”
compare that to the way your presenting it in the blog post
17Amethyst
wrote on 28 December 2009 at 9:35
eshda3wa
Eshda3wa ya eshda3wa;p
Not yet, taw elnass
Vinnie
My other half and myself have come to an agreement regarding that matter a long long time ago, thankfully.
I understand that. We’ve all indulged in vices; as you put it, and I never accused anyone of having a “houlier than thou attitude.” However, recognizing shades of grey means having the ability to understand a different point of view and respecting the person who holds on to it and believes in it regardless.
My exact statement was, “Who said I am against smoking? I never said that, and I’m not against it or for.” I also remember emphasizing that I do not care for the act itself. What’s wrong with that statement?
Of course my tone was different; I was verbal while this is written. Same goes for you and the rest of the group involved in the discussion. The opinion and argument is the same, and whether it is verbal, written, has a different tone, or is presented more clearly, I’m sure my point was as clear that day as it is today.
18Vinnie
wrote on 28 December 2009 at 11:13
Lol, the views presented that day represent the individual views held by their presenters and in no way represent the view of this network
?
Shako
But no, I c what ur saying, u c what we’r saying… isn’t that the best
19Flaming Carrot
wrote on 28 December 2009 at 13:07
How was the movie? I’ve heard alot about it and haven’t had the opportuntiy to watch it yet……
20Amethyst
wrote on 28 December 2009 at 15:31
Vinnie
No, it’s not;p But the company is
Flaming Carrot
It’s a good movie. Try and watch in a serious atmosphere.
21F.
wrote on 12 January 2010 at 14:51
Yeah, I heard about that silly question raised at film week. Makes me want to bang my head on the wall!
As for your argument on smoking…I don’t quite get what you’re saying, but grey is just lovely…
22Amethyst
wrote on 12 January 2010 at 19:07
F.
Yeah, it makes you wonder why she’s a literature major. Sigh.
Grey is wonderful;*