Verne, Manala, Peter discussed on VelociPodcast
Welcome to the podcast, a study and Manala. Gee, this is your grumpy ankle. Peter. He will say words at you clearly have been working through my daddy issues lately, because I've told multiple stories about my experiences with my father, my father plays guitar anyplace fairly. Well, and when I was young, I think it was about twelve I asked him to teach me how to play guitar now. See sat me down on chair and he put the guitar. He told me I had to cross my legs. And I asked why he said, that's how classical guitarist sit. So it's how you sit properly, but I was very self-conscious twelve year old boy in sitting like that wasn't comfortable. I'd never sat like that before. So actually sitting like that was physically uncomfortable. And quite frankly, the guitar being as big as it was, and I was still relatively small when I sat that way the guitar went up into my chin, and I couldn't even see the strings or where my hands would be. And, but it was more the self conscious aspect of sitting in a way I wasn't comfortable with that really, really. Put me off. But my father wouldn't let it go. He said, if I didn't I had to sit properly if I was going to do it. So, of course, I never came back for a second lesson. I think I learned acord I strummed it a couple of times, and then that was it. We were done. And I was supposed to come back and ask him if I ever wanted the second lesson, but I never came back because I knew the first thing you would do was made me, sit properly which I found very uncomfortable. Didn't want to do. So there's a neat question there. So is it worth making someone do something properly, if they're going to immediately quit? Or is it better to have them? Do it a slightly wrong way in maybe have that skill for the rest of their life because I don't play guitar. I don't play any instrument. I have no musical talent because I've never practiced, and I've never practiced because of that first negative experience because I was forced to sit in a way. I wasn't comfortable sitting, but also it comes down to enjoyment. Now, my father and his mind, I wasn't dedicated enough. I, I didn't really want it that badly. And I didn't I didn't want it that badly. I just thought, oh, there's guitars around the house guitars, in a neat thing. I see I see people on TV using them. They seem like kind of sexy. Maybe like to learn electric guitar down the line, and be rockstar, who knows. I didn't have a particular passion for it. But it was a neat thing. It was available and I wanted to try it, and I was immediately turned off doing it because I actually never saw anyone sit down playing classical guitar. I saw music videos guys were jumping off speakers and doing guitar solos way, cooler than sitting with your legs cross. I playing classical guitar. So I think maybe it's better to introduce people to new things in a way that they enjoy it, regardless of it being one hundred percent proper or not as opposed to them, not being able to pick up any new skills because should you get comfortable with the guitar? You might wanna learn classical guitar, and then sitting that way might make more sense, or you might start doing that naturally anyways, but it's the same thing when people who are left handed are forced to do things in a right handed way. A lot of them I can see. It's so uncomfortable. They wouldn't do it in the first place. Why who does it hurt? If they do it in technically wrong way. And actually pick up the skill. Takes us onto a whole different topic that just entered my head that there were no left handed samurai you had to, if you were left handed, you still had to learn to wheeled your sword with your right hand. So that old Japanese ideology comes in all of a sudden. But now I'm thinking a left handed samurai would really mess up everyone because they would have no idea what to do. The core question why are dragons on game of thrones in the hobbit done incorrectly? Those are wide Verne's not dragons. This is a problem. I've I have addressed several times. And it's the problem of people not understanding fiction. So I had to go look up the definition of wven just to make sure I knew what I was talking about. And to see to make sure I understood what this person was talking about. So the definition of a wide Vern is a winged two legged dragon with a barbed tail. And then if you look up the definition of dragon, dragon is a large serpent like legendary creature that appears in folklore of many cultures around the world beliefs about dragons, very drastically by region dragons, and western cultures since the high middle ages have often been depicted as winged horned four legged and capable of breathing fire. The first problem is that a wine is a kind of dragon and therefore calling into a dragon is perfectly acceptable. So the person who asked this question is trying to define something, which is actually a sub category of a big thing. So calling it a wider, and his correct, and calling it a dragon his also correct? So there's your first problem is they think that those are different things, and they're not once a subcategory of another now, that's like saying you shouldn't call people mammals, because they're humans, but humans are kind of mammal. So it is actually perfectly acceptable to walk around saying mammal, mammal mammal mammal. You actually just walk around saying that that'd be really weird. Now my personal problem is whenever someone complains about fiction. They seem to think that it's not fiction anymore that there are rules that apply to the fiction, but those are rules are only in their head, a great example of this is that these Bs in the Walking Dead are never referred to his own bees, because the author decided that in this fictional world. There had never been any zombie fiction, so they had never used that word so they call them walkers. And then when they meet different communities, the different communities have different names for. The undid who've come back in attack them. That's a really cool. Interesting thing. And I thought it was really nice touch never using the word zombie, the author when creating a fiction is free to create whatever they want and defined it any way they want. So when they are writing about dragons and game of thrones he could have called it whatever he wanted. He called it dragons, probably because we know what a dragon is. And therefore, you don't have to draw a big painting or an image, or an idea of what a dragon is as soon as I say dragon you have a fairly basic idea of what a drag and looks like so that's all work done for you by general mythology. That doesn't have to be done by the author, but he could have called them, androids, this big reptile like thing with wings that breathes fire that walks around on two to four legs, the androids have come because in his universe. He creates the name and. What is the name that everyone in that universe is going to accept the fact that you don't like it in that you're using a definition is come from another source means that other sources now irrelevant because it's not within this universe. It would be like if you read a science fiction, book, that talked about die lithium crystals and you got angry that they weren't using dilute the crystals the same way that, that term is used in Star Trek because Star Trek as far as I know where they originally coined the term die lithium crystals. But the fact that I've changed universe, and I'm using a similar word or the same word for different thing is perfectly acceptable, because that is how fiction works. So why are the dragons and game of thrones in the hobbit done incorrectly, while they're not you are incorrect, because first of all, you've not even understood the definition properly. Those are wide Verne's, not dragons, Wibran's are kind of dragon and therefore you can call them dragons, but more importantly, you misunderstood, how fiction works, because the most important thing to remember is. It's not real. Hip hitter in episode one fifty he referred to park or part, humans as centers, and I believe you assume that they're mythos species, and I happen to know that some of them will identify as mentors. So I'd like you to talk about mandatory, please. Yeah. Let's, let's talk about minute tours. 'cause that's that's how I wanna spend my life. That's, that's what I went to school for years and years of education university degree. Minute tours. Right. So there's a couple of actual issues. One, I had to do research for the center episode, which really sort of ruined a bit of me inside part of my soul died a little bit. And the reason is I had to go and read about centers and of course anything that's posted on the internet. People weigh in with their opinions, you get people's ideas, and thoughts and things. And in most of those are pretty awful. And I think the reason it bothered me was because there were actual people who, who were legitimately trying to take a stand on the center miniature issue. But it's very clearly divided. You can't identify as a minute tour or sent or you can't be a center who identifies as mentor because of the definition now, this, of course if you get into modern. Social politics is actually a very risky stands to take. So I'm taking a tough stand, but it's primarily because sentors are specie whereas the minute or is actually an individual, you have the center of the central is universally defined as a human torso attached to the physical body of a horse, but that it would even include the horse tour show, which is the first problem that comes up, when you think about centers, a minute tour is a human body with a Bullhead and a bull tail now we there were some questions as to whether a center could have a human body in horse torso, but throughout the mythos that never occurred, the, the minute tour. Specifically, though is the offspring of the creatine Queen pacify not hundred percent. Sure. I'm saying that Pepsi Fe and a majestic bull it's actually defined as a majestic. I don't know what the difference between a bona. Majestic bull is. In this cream Queen, why she was getting it on with a bull. It's I didn't read the whole story. And I think the reason I didn't read the whole story is because I didn't want to. I took a deep dive once into Zeus. And basically, it was all the things that Zeus had raped. And after that, I kind of kind of. Lost a bit of my taste for mythology because there was a bit too much rape. And there was a lot of.