Twihard. MLIT? IDGAF!

So, I have read Twilight. I own the entire series. I've seen the movies. And I loathe it. Aside from the fact that it's totally unoriginal, my only problem with it is how POORLY WRITTEN it is. Meyer's prose is just horrible. Simply craptastic. I really like Bella and her personality aside from the whole "anything for Edward" part. I like the Cullens. And the wolves. I. Can't. Stand. The AUTHOR! It's just horrible writing. It's like FANFICTION for chrissake. 
  Oh, you're angry about me calling it unoriginal? Welllll, let's see.
  The vampire is a good vampire who doesn't want to hurt humans, so he feeds off of animals instead? *cough* Louis from Interview with the Vampire *cough* 
  There are werewolves? And they don't get along with vampires? *gasp* Well, doesn't that sound like the Southern Vampire Mysteries?!?!?!?
   
 If you're wondering what started this rant, I heard that the Breaking Dawn movie would be split into two parts. As soon as I heard that I said:


"NO. NO! NOOO!  Stephenie Meyer's Twilight is SHIT! Is this 'cause Deathly Hallows is gonna be in two parts?! You're not like that! You can't TOUCH Harry Potter! Twilight is like that one vampire who Slughorn knows who VANTED TO SUCK HARRY'S BLUUUD! FUCK TWILIGHT!"

Nature vs. Nurture

 D'you remember my post about "The Fires of Pompeii"? That episode of Doctor Who? Right. I promised to talk about the whole nature versus nurture thing, but I never got around to it 'cause of my hiatus and the fact that I tried to placate your hunger for more Circumflex Underscore Circumflex using lolcats. 

No? Good. Then I'll get back to my topic.


   For those who don't know,the nature versus nurture debates concern the  importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature") versus personal experiences ("nurture") in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as "the blank slate" . This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naive - representing an outdated state of knowledge

  Personally, I agree with those psychologists. While some part is determined by genetic tendencies, nurture has an incredible amount of influence on the person you become. It's ridiculous to say that it's all nature. If it were a pair of identical twins would be exactly the same, regardless of whether they were reared separately or not.

    Psychologist Donald Hebb was once asked: "Which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" He replied, quite rightly, "Which contributes more to the ares of a rectangle: length or width?"

(Sorry for the shortness of this post. Still getting back into the swing of things. Love always.)

*awkward pause*

I forgot the PURPOSE of this BLOG. Maybe just trite amusing things? Okay. We'll keep it that way.

^_^

 Sincerest apologies for my extended absence. Here is a lolcat to make amends. <3