monpetitsoulierr a réagi à votre billet “padarnaalat It might not be the Dutch station you were talking about...”

But he is talking about something different and he is right in a sense. A lot of racism = ignorance.

lametisse replied to your post: I’ll be 22 in like 30 minutes. 

Lol if I wasn’t allowed to brood today, you’re not allowed to be sad over yours.

So selfish. :( 

emulgent a réagi à votre billet “I’ll be 22 in like 30 minutes. ”

Happy Birthday hun. 23 is worse, 24 is even more and at 25 bad things happen.

I like your outlook on life. Very depressing! That's very nice. (Thank you!) 

k7letal3ain a réagi à votre billet “godsavethekhaleesi replied to your post: I’ll be 22 in like 30...”

OMG happy birthday!! InshaAllah Allah blesses all your years to come, dear!

Thank you for all the wishes! <3 (It must be April 7th in Jordan already so I forgive you for being early). 

monpetitsoulierr a réagi à votre billet “monpetitsoulierr replied to your post: I’ll be 22 in like 30...”

Loll dans 10 mins tu vas te transformer en vieille femme avec les rides et tout 😂!!

Arrête, ou je vais commencer à me sentir comme ça. Haha. 

amstramgramcolegram a réagi à votre billet “I’ll be 22 in like 30 minutes. ”

mes félicitations, et mes condoléances.

Merci beaucoup! (Oui je suis en plein deuil là. Haha). 

firdaosi a réagi à votre billet “monpetitsoulierr replied to your post: I’ll be 22 in like 30...”

I turned 18 yesterday! Yay April babies

Lol word!

how do you feel about people fancasting black actors who arent north african? just in general,not as a reflection of north african fcs. also i agree i hate aish and freida bc of oversaturation and how theyre in western cinema so ppl feel comf w/them

It is okay. if the actor absolutely represent the ideal representation of what the fan had in mind. Though I'd honestly prefer North Africans (especially because I hate the afrocentrist view here that Moors = Black and just Black when the term Moor has no real value in the first place. It was just a word designed to call the Muslims who lived in North Africa, in Spain and in Sicily during the Middle-Ages and that's all). But in the end of the day, there were Black Moors and there are Black Maghrebis so it's still slightly better than casting only the same Indian actresses (just a bit of diversity in the fancasts would be nice to see, that's all I ask). It's true from what I've seen, GRRM had in mind "Arab" looking characters so even at the utmost, Middle Eastern actors would be fine with me personally. Moorish people were either Berbers or Arabs in the end of the day so that's not much difference when it comes to the Arab part. 

I'm no fan of Freida. I've always really liked Aish (even though, as an actress, she has her ups and downs. But there are movies in which she's just great). But even as a fan of Hindi cinema, I hate only seeing Aishwarya Rai in the fancasts when there are many more Indian actresses... :/ (It makes me want to also give a list of Indian actresses bcz only seeing Aish and Freida in those fancasts bugs me a looooot). If someone absolutely wants to cast Indian actors, there are a wide range of choices. Even if you don't know anything about the different Indian cinema industries, with a bit of reasearch, it's easy to find other choices (so there is literally no excuse when it comes to South Asian actresses, seriously). and I'm pretty sure there are British actresses of South Asian descent, why does nobody pick them for the fancasts? :/ 

(sorry for the long rant) 

monpetitsoulierr a réagi votre billet : Id love to make a list of North African actors...

You should do it. Freda pinto is always cast as the arab girl.

haha true! it’s just because I am more into learning someone’s perspective and want to remain critical of my own. I’ll defs look more into it

I agree in other circumstances but we’re talking about a gene here. We know for a fact that she will most likely get it if she doesn’t do this. If she doesn’t get it, then she’s just lucky

pt2 (not enough space :p):I am sure she consulted with her doctors to know what other alternatives there are and a mastectomy seems to be the best route. This gene is not just a small symptom if you carry it you will most likely have it.

pt3: at the end of the day, you may not agree with her decision personally because you never know what can happen but it was not an unreasonable decision. she wouldve had to live in and out the hospital under constant surveillance if she didnt do it

&^*% Tumblr....sorry, I just typed out a response to the above and when I clicked in the tags field, my text just disappeared! :(

I guess, in summary, we have a fundamental difference of opinion because I don't accept the statistics that they're providing for a few very simple reasons. One of them is that if this gene was as decisive as they make it out to be, it would not be a probability, but in fact, it would be a certainty. Also, looking at the gene and then predicting an outcome automatically assumes that the current lifestyle choices and emotional maturity will remain consistent for the remainder of the patient's life, which is simply unrealistic. Why is it that so many people 'outgrow' certain ailments like asthma, sinuses, allergies, and the like? Not because the ailment suddenly disappears at an older age, but mostly because they learn to cope more effectively with various stress triggers in their lives, which results in better physical well being. 

There are also far too many informed opinions out there that support my logic/perspective in this (as a layman) which only further raises my concerns about the dangerous precedent that this treatment approach is setting. 

I see your point but I think that most of the science field is about probability/statistics etc. We can’t deal with every case. I think if you observe that 90% of ppl with this gene get the disease it is better to be safe than sorry.

I understand where you're coming from on this, but this is my concern. Firstly, it's a probability and not a certainty, which to me means that there could be any number of other triggers that activates that gene, and similarly can deactivate it, which means that it is not confirmed to cause breast cancer. It's like saying (as an example only) that shallow breathing is a common symptom of lung cancer, so anyone with shallow breathing has a high probability of either getting lung cancer, or worse, already has lung cancer. Meanwhile, we know that there are many other factors that cause shallow breathing.

To demonstrate a point it often helps to take it to the extreme. So consider this. Every human has a 100% probability of dying. The probability of dying as a result of severe trauma or grave illness is probably around 95% of those deaths. Couple that with the average life expectancy in your region and you're essentially saying that people that approach the average life expectancy in their region should kill themselves if they hope to avoid a painful death? 

One more point worth noting is that we immediately negate any aspects of how to deal with the activation of this gene through changes in lifestyle, diet, psychology, etc. when we assume that the most recommended treatment option is amputation before anything else. Worse than this, we also assume that the identification of the presence of this gene is an accurate marker, when in fact it is not, because if it was, the infection rate would be 100% and not subject to a fluctuating rate relative to the family history and lifestyle of the individual. 

The gene she has increases her chances of getting breast cancer up to 87%. Thanks to the mastectomy she has less than 5% of getting it

Here's the part that doesn't add up for me. The reports all state specifically that it would prevent her from getting breast cancer. Not just any cancer. So I'm wondering how she would even have a 5% chance of getting breast cancer now that she doesn't even have breasts?

But more importantly, why is everyone ignoring how many times doctors get it wrong? How many times have doctors insisted that people had a very limited time left to live, and they were wrong! Imagine if every person that was given a death sentence by a doctor because of cancer had to go and kill themselves pre-emptively to avoid the pain and suffering of a slow death? Seriously, think about it, because that is what this latest approach to good health is teaching us. If your doctor says that you're going to have an inevitable outcome because of a statistical probability, you must go ahead and remove that healthy part of your body in order to prevent yourself from realising that statistical probability.

Here's the thing for me. I am not, and I refuse to believe, that I am a statistical probability because that simply robs me of the ability to think and act independently, or rationally. I am also not the sum total of chemical reactions only, because I know that the decisions I make and the acts I carry out directly influence my state of well being. I also know for a fact that I get sick when I don't handle stress well, I don't stop handling stress well because I got sick. So to me, it's logical that I would need to learn healthier lifestyle habits, and I would need to learn better coping mechanisms to deal with negative stress. And removing my body parts will never be a consideration in that regard.