What do real bikers think of Sons of Anarchy?
As a 1%er I know some of my brothers won’t ever watch it, some despise it and some are ambivalent. Personally as a show I think it is watchable. As a true reflection? Utter nonsense. The character of Gemma would never have the power she has in real life. MCs are very male orientated and women never ever have influence. No MC would likely have all the members working at the same place owned by one member. If that member left the club would face uncertainty. Plus in reality members come from different backgrounds and have different jobs. The criminality and the violence is massively exaggerated for dramatic effect. Any club acting like that would be instantly shut down by law enforcement. The show did get some things right, the way the club is organised, with officers, and the brotherhood aspects. It certainly has had a knock on effect with the MC world. There is a lot more Jax Teller wannabes about these days and people either see you as pretending to be like the show or they fear you are actually like that. MCs are generally private and like to keep to themselves so having a bad rep is not so much of an impact but no MC wants to be ridiculed.
Was Hindu "God" Krishna a sexual pervert?
LORD KRSNA MARRIES 16,000 WIVES & THEN DESTROYS HIS OWN FAMILY TO DEPOPULATE THE EARTH Lord Krsna must be seriously lacking foresight to have sex with so many gopis, overpopulate the earth & then destroy his own family for weighing down the earth: "Krsna became a householder (head of a household) in Dvaraka and married many wives, and had many sons and grandsons. In the race of the Yadus, no one was poor; everyone had many children, lived a long life, and respected Brahmins. But they were so numerous that one could not count them even in a hundred years. The terrible demons who had been slain in the battle of the gods and demons were born among men, and so at the command of Visnu the gods became incarnate in the race of Yadus to repress the demons.... When Krsna had killed the demons, and thus relieved the burden of the earth, he thought, 'The earth is still overburdened by the unbearably burdensome race of the Yadus. No one else can overcome them, since they are under my protection
Christians say there is a Trinity. Can you Scripturally verify this?
G-d appeared to Moses in a burning bush, but that's not worshipped or made part of the G-dhead. He appeared as a dove, too, at Jesus' baptism, yet the dove is not included in the G-dhead, either. Why did 3 (Father, Son & H-ly Spirit) get chosen while the other manifestations were left out?
What are your opinions about the “no killing” rule that most superheroes have?
Originally many Heroes did kill for the reasons that you think they would, to put an end to criminals, permanently. However, due to the heavy criticism from religious fanatics and mothers, a Comics Code Authority was put in place. They would read over and censor things and had strict guidelines that comic books had to follow. This resulted in one of the most seminal periods for Comic Book Superheroes: The Silver age. The Silver age is what made Superman who is today and further cemented elements of other characters like Batman as well as revised—The Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Blue Beetle, Lex Luthor— and Introduced—Captain Comet, Professor Ivo, Bizarro, Adam Strange, The Justice League (although the JSA already had been made)— characters.These restrictions allowed something beautiful to be created that which future comics would build upon and use as a platform vastly Superior stories. One of the elements that was given to them was immense and fantastical power as well as impossible morality. These two things makes them what they are. It’s why people often call the Justice League gods, because they are gods; And they’re all much better. Unlike those of the Greek pantheon they are not vengeful or cruel, they are pure, kind, and powerful.If you take away the morality from a superhero, you take away the part that makes them a hero. Someone who recklessly wields the power to destroy the earth is a villain, not a hero. Taking a life because you have the power to simply isn’t right; Heroes don’t blur the lines between good and evil. Vigilantes do. Punisher isn’t a hero, he’s a mass murderer. Batman wouldn’t shake his hands and say “I respect the work you do, although I can’t condone it.”, he’d punch him in his mass murderer face. He’d kill a child, he’s not a hero.If a Superhero kills he isn’t a Superhero, he’s just super; And in punisher’s case, he’s not even super. Just like Punisher says, he’s just a shooter doing what a shooter does.Basically, if you shoot and kill people, you aren’t a hero, you’re a killer. Superheroes don’t kill. I know what you’re saying, Batman killed Darkseid. However, Darkseid isn’t a person, he’s an inhuman vessel for an objectively evil force given to the rulers of an evil planet. He’s basically killing the devil.
Can a blur in a photo be good? If a photo is blurry, because the scene is moving, is it OK? Is this deemed as poor photography, or can it be considered good as it shows motion? If the object of focus is blurry?
“If a photo is blurry, because the scene is moving, is it OK? … I mean like if the object of focus is blurry.”It can be, but as with any artistic rule that’s being broken, there should be a reason for it. Oftentimes it doesn’t work.As with any photography technique, your use of blur should aid the eye or help to communicate something about the moment. At the very least it should create a composition that is artfully pleasing. There are two types of blur you can have in a photograph. Out-of-focus blur (or bokeh) and motion blur.With out-of-focus blur, its strength is usually to help draw your eye to a different part of the photo. The most common use like this is to have a blurry background behind a sharp subject. Sometimes you can make the focus even more extreme; if everything is out of focus except for someone’s eye for example, the eye becomes more powerful because all of your attention is drawn there. Occasionally you can have the subject of your photo be out of focus and have the photo still work, but it’s rare.With motion blur, its strength is to communicate movement. But think about what type of movement or emotion you’re communicating with the blur. If you want to show an unstable situation (like a war zone for example) it could be effective to have motion blur from camera shake in the image. If you want to show a moving object (or objects), it works better to show the motion in relation to something stationary. So either have the subject sharp and the background blurred, or have the background sharp and the subject blurred. This communicates that one object is moving relative to the other.I’ll leave you with one of my favourite photos I’ve taken that uses motion blur:It’s not an award-winning image or anything, but the reason I love the motion blur is because of what it communicates. By seeing the blurred figures in the foreground, you realize that time is passing in this photo. But the subjects in the background are perfectly sharp, which means they are standing very still. To me, this communicates waiting. Stillness amongst busyness. The motion blur adds to the story of the image.To give this photo a bit more context, all of the people standing still in the background of the photo were part of a group I was with that was traveling to Africa, and we were waiting in the hotel lobby for the airport shuttle to arrive, so I wanted to try and show that artistically with the image.