023 While walking in the park, you see a stranger and realize with absolute certainty that if you go over and introduce yourself, the two of you will fall in love more deeply than you even imagine possible. But you also know that in 6 months the person will be hit by a bus and killed. Would you go over to the person or leave? Assume you know that once you decide, you’ll forget what lies ahead.

Hey, guys, I'm back! I know I said I'd post on Saturday, and today happens to be Monday, but I've been a bit tired and busy, sorry!! I hope you've all been well and faithfully read Quibbles's posts this week, as she upheld the blog all on her own :)

Regarding the question in the title, I think I would do it. If you know for sure you will fall in love with this person, that means he or she is great, and will end up your best friend and you'll have amazing times while you are together. Would you really choose not knowing your best friend if you knew they were going to die soon and cause you such immense pain from their loss? It's pretty much no competition. With the pain comes all the wonderful experiences you had together, and that will help you get through the loss.

This question reminds me of Augustus and Hazel Grace a little bit. Even though Hazel, Gus (Augustus), and their families knew that Hazel was probably going to die, Gus never doubted once that he wanted to be with her in the time remaining. That's what made him special. He didn't care that Hazel's cancer was terminal, because the time they spent together was worth the pain he knew would come along with her death. (This was not quite the ending, but I won't give anything away ;))

Another thing I would like to add is my belief about destiny, or fate. Some people don't believe in this, but I like to believe that fate isn't a set path, but a set of choices you make personally to get you where you're meant to be. Sometimes people make bad choices, but that just helps them grow as a person and towards their destiny because it will shape the choices they make in the future. If I didn't know beforehand that my "true love" was destined to die in six months (in one way or another), I would have fallen in love with this person and would have been forced to endure the pain of this person's death. These kinds of situations change people, sometimes for the better, or the worse, but I think it's meant to be. Trying to evade destiny would not end well.

Wouldn't it be unfair to your "true love" to also alter their lives in such a huge way? You don't know anything about this person, and you're already depriving them of your love and being loved. They could really need it, you never know. Maybe he or she has cancer, just like Hazel, and needs someone to love them and have this experience before they die. Maybe they're going to die in a car crash, or something unpredictable, but at least they'll die knowing they're loved. I think the spread of love, in any of its forms, should be encouraged and celebrated.

What do you think, Quibbles?

Love always,
- Nargles 8/11/14

021.5 Freak the Geek

Dear Quibbles,
I agree with John Green about the situation he mentioned. It's not the girls' fault that their bullies think that they aren't good enough, or cool enough, or too geeky. The fact that they care enough to say things like that portrays how they might feel about themselves. They thing they need to do this to remain popular or to get people to like them, etc. That's their problem that they feel this way, and dislike people for being themselves. Sure, there are a good amount of people I dislike, for no good reason at all, because they just aren't my kind of people. I, however, don't make mean comments towards them or bully them.

I sort of believe that if I don't like someone for who they are, it is my fault. This is due to the fact that I think that if I could see everyone, or just a couple strangers, for who they really are, almost all of them are worthy of my love or liking, you know what I mean. Everyone has people who love them, and everyone has flaws. Perhaps behind every bully is a really insecure little boy or girl, or behind a terrorist is someone whose family was shot and killed (for being terrorists), leaving him scarred and angry. It's seeing past the flaws and accepting them that really constitutes love. There are some horrible people out there, with horrible flaws that can't or should not be accepted. Some people can't be helped, but I truly believe that if you show someone you care they will eventually be willing to let you in. Showing that you care, you can help them fix the bad, and replace it with good. We throw criminals into jail without getting them what they really need. Support, therapy, a caring community. The government virtually throws them in an extended time out, which isn't effective. They throw them away without trying to fix them, they don't show they care. Too easily we give up on people. Maybe this is me being an optimist, but really, "love is all you need."

Okay, sorry, this took a really big turn, but let me know what you think, Quibbles!

Love always,
- Nargles 8//11/14

021 Freak the Geek

So you all know about John Green. Or most of you do. If you don't know who he is, check out our Book Corners page and you will see pretty much all of his books. And after that, you can click on our links page and there are three links dedicated to him.

He's known for his writing because he speaks the truth, he has quirky, unique, and lovable characters, and he has a fantastic sense of humor. In The Fault in Our Stars, he swells up our hearts and make us love and adore the characters... and then proceeds to stomp on them (both our hearts and the characters) with the heel of a stiletto. In fact, John Green describes Hazel describing Augustus's cancer as "a one-legged fat man wearing a stiletto heel standing on the middle of his chest". But you and I know this isn't true. It isn't John, or Hazel, or Augustus that's being described. It's those of us stupid enough to open the book, fail to realize that the book could blow our feelings apart, and keep on reading to the end. And I am one of those people.

In any case, here's a quote I found from one of his lesser known works, a short story called "Freak the Geek" from an anthology of short stories called Geektastic: Stories from the Nerd Herd. It's about two girls in a private school: a geeky, shy girl named Lauren (the narrator) and a geeky, not-shy girl named Kayley, her best friend. The ritual at their school is for the the popular kids to "freak the geek", or, in other words, massively prank the girl(s) they find the geekiest. Lauren and Kayley are 'freaked' by a paintball war in which (surprise surprise) they are not the ones wielding the guns. As they run into the woods and hide under a bridge, Kayley sort of blows up on Lauren by telling her that the reason they're running from their own classmates and considered the two least liked girls in the entire school is because Lauren is "meek". Lauren responds by telling her the following:

You know, you're a total know-it-all. And it's incredibly rude sometimes; I mean, you're not perfect either, and you act like it's my fault but it's not my fault for being quiet or your fault for being a know-it-all. It's not your problem or my problem; it's their problem. They're the demented ones, not us, so don't take it out on me, because the only thing that holds anything together for me is having someone else on the Not Demented Team.
(Lauren to Kayley)

- John Green, "Freak the Geek", Geektastic

This quote sort of intrigues me. Because it's interesting to think that being the way you are isn't your fault if someone doesn't like it. It's their fault for thinking that way. Me, I don't think any opinion can be wrong or right, and I really don't think an opinion can be someone's fault, but it's an interesting thought to consider.

- Quibbles 8/7/14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

018 If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it? (and more)

First of all, it's Day 1 of Quibbles-and-Nargles-without-Nargles, and I miss you :(

Thank you for the views! Look, you guys even made one of my favorite natural monuments!




So thanks.

Today, as I was sucked into the vortex that is watching Vlogbrothers' Brotherhood 2.0 series (starring Hank and John Green and possibly the Yeti and Katherine and Daniel Biss), I found the origin of the Evil Baby Orphanage.

The Evil Baby Orphanage all started when Hank asked John (and the viewers) the question: If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it?

As John put it, there were several groups of people reacting to this question.

• First were the "No! A baby is a baby, and baby Hitler has done nothing wrong yet!"
• Then, there were the "Hitler killed seventy million Jews, I think we have the right to kill him."
• And finally, there was viewer Brooke who said, "Why don't we go back in time, collect baby Hitler, bring him to the present, and put him into an Evil Baby Orphanage with all the other Evil Babies and try to reform him?"

So out of these responses, I got the following follow up questions:

1. Is it okay to kill a baby? What if you knew this baby was going to kill over seventy million civilians on purpose?
2. Is it possible to be a good person and do bad things? How about being a bad person and doing good things?
3. Do we have the right to kill people who kill people? When is it okay to kill?
4. If we learn from our mistakes, why are we so keen to avoid them?
5. Is a bad person a bad person if he hasn't done bad things yet? 
6. Should we blame the leader more than we should blame his/her followers if they do bad deeds? Good deeds?

Overall, I don't think we should go back and kill baby Hitler. A baby is born good, and we shouldn't kill a baby just because it will make the wrong choices. I think we should give all people a chance to change their life course.


1) Is it okay to kill a baby? What if you knew this baby was going to kill over seventy million civilians on purpose?

It is never okay to kill a baby. Everyone deserves a chance to live, and everyone deserves a chance to make choices, as I said earlier. Even if I knew the baby was Hitler, I would not kill it. I wouldn't commit homicide because of what-ifs in the future. Instead, I would go and guide Hitler in his later years so he wouldn't make such choices. Maybe I would even put him in a different family, with different influences and conditions. Possibly, I would tell the admissions office at the art school Hitler was rejected from to accept him, because that would probably change his life. Of course, this is all assuming I'm all-powerful and I can persuade people to do random things very easily.

2) Is it possible to be a good person and do bad things? How about being a bad person and doing good things?

I don't think you can be a good person and do bad things. We are only as 'good' as our actions are, and the fact that we do good things makes us good people. We can be good people and make mistakes, but killing a baby or manipulating someone, for instance, is despicable, inexcusable, and never something a 'good' person might be forced to do 'under circumstances', or by 'accident' (I'm talking to you, Voldemort).

3) Do we have the right to kill people who kill people? When is it okay to kill?

This goes back to my post on the death penalty. It is never okay to kill someone, even if punishing them is worse. What makes us better than criminals if we are also murderers? What makes certain kinds of killing justifiable? Is murder different as it concerns the circumstances? I'm answering my own question with more questions, but this one's not really an easy one to answer with words.

4) If we learn from our mistakes, why are we so keen to avoid them?

This is a part of the reasons why I don't think I would kill baby Hitler. I don't mean to say that watching 70 million people killed is the best way for us to learn from our mistakes, but if this ever happens again, we'll pick up on it quickly enough to prevent it. It's a bit like chicken pox, once you get it, your immune system sort of catalogues it into your health arsenal. The next time it approaches, your body recognizes it and stops it before it begins. I think that even if I killed Hitler, something similar would have happened, and with the weapons of mass destruction invented today, do you think it would be a good idea to let the Holocaust happen... in this age? I guess 70 million people killed then is better than the entire 7 billion of us killed now. Humans learn from their mistakes for a reason, and the Holocaust has given us enough of an example of what might happen if we turn a blind eye to cruelty and injustice again.

5) Is a bad person a bad person if he hasn't done bad things yet?

Some of us are born trusting everyone we meet. Some of us are born with fifth and sixth chances gladly handed out to everybody. And some of us are born naturally suspicious, with an eye out for danger and an intelligence to match. Severus Snape was one of these people. And so was Hitler. I guess what I'm trying to say is that people aren't born bad, because as I said earlier, our actions define who we are, and you can't really do bad things when you're newly born. But people can be born with personalities that match bad actions, or personalities that flourish under the wrong care.

Let's take Severus Snape. Maybe if he was born into a happy family with great wealth and support in his community, he wouldn't have joined Voldemort. He would probably still be put in Slytherin, because you can't really change your personality, but if he was guided to make the right choices, he would definitely have been different... maybe if Lily Evans had been his older sister. But he was born into a constantly fighting family that was sneered upon and struggling with money. His suspicious and cunning nature bloomed into a misunderstanding of 'right' and 'wrong', and he eventually turned dark. If Hitler were influenced differently, and if the circumstances were different, he wouldn't have done what he did, I'm positive. Babies are born innocent, and Adolf Hitler was once a baby.

6) Should we blame the leader more than we should blame his/her followers if they do bad deeds? Good deeds?

And finally, I'm a little too tired to finish this post, so I'll throw this one out to you, Nargles. And viewers. Do you think a leader should be judged differently than his/her followers? Let me pull a SAT and follow with this: "Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations." Have fun with this, it's a really great question, and I'm really interested in your (<-plural?) thoughts on this.

 - Quibbles 8/4/14