In medieval culture, an event like a royal christening is not a private party; it’s the public social event of the year. To not invite any person of rank to such an event is a deadly insult.
Maleficent is certainly someone you wouldn’t want at a party, but she’s also someone powerful enough that only a fool would ever dare treat her with such blatant disrespect. The only way the King and Queen could possibly have gotten away with not inviting Maleficent was to not invite any of the fairies at all; inviting the other fairies and excluding her is explicitly taking sides in the conflict between the fairy factions.
Which means they made themselves her sworn enemies, and she responded by treating them as such from then on. If you actually get into analyzing the social dynamics of the scene, it’s very clear that Maleficent was willing to show mercy at first by giving the King and Queen a chance to apologize for their disrespect to her. She doesn’t curse Aurora until after she gives them that chance and they throw it back in her face with further disrespect.
And yeah, if the King and Queen had done the properly respectful thing and invited her, Maleficent would have given Aurora a scary awesome present. Moreover so would the other fairies, because at that point both sides would be using it as an opportunity to show off and one-up each other. What they gave her before Maleficent showed up was basically just trivial party favors by fairy standards.
How do you know so much about the social dynamics of medieval fairies
People think of children as either sweet and innocent or too stupid to cause much trouble and both views are wrong. A child of elementary school age has the moral reasoning and impulse control of a racoon paired with problem solving equal to or superior to an adult’s, yet unbound by the shackles of cautionary experience or awareness of long-term consequence.
This is what allows the children to both create a black market in live bioweapons while still only valuing said weapons at 25 cents.
i still have the moral reasoning and impulse control of a raccoon
i learned that actor Danny Trejo has the most on-screen deaths of anyone in Hollywood history, with 65. Followed by Christopher Lee (60), Lance Henriksen (51), Vincent Price (41), Dennis Hopper (41), Boris Karloff (41), and John Hurt (39). (x)
Yet poor Sean Bean is stuck with the reputation for dying in every movie. Unfair.
Give him time, he still has many years of dying yet to come.
Also there’s the question of density vs quantity. If you make a hundred movies and die in 50, and someone else makes 30 movies and dies in 30, the first one has died more, but the second one has died more often per movie.
It’s the DPM ratio that really counts, IMO.
65/402 16% Danny Trejo 60/282 21% Christopher Lee 51/259 20% Lance Henriksen 41/211 19% Vincent Price 41/205 20% Dennis Hopper 41/204 20% Boris Karloff 39/209 19% John Hurt 33/117 28% Sean Bean
im at a restaurant right now and there’s this like 16 year old kid sitting at the table next to me completely alone with like 6 racks of ribs. hes eating like 1 rib every 10 seconds and the poor server who was assigned to him has to keep getting him new ribs. ive been here for an hour just watching this kid inhale ribs like he’s gonna die the next day. he probably will given the amount of hot sauce he put on them
i cannot stress enough that this is a stick-thin teenage child sitting alone at a restaurant absolutely going to town on these ribs. this child is eating like hes trying to personally rid the world of ribs. i’ve been timing him, he orders a full other rack of ribs every 2 minutes. this is fucking insane i dont know what to do
$700/mo 1 bd1 ba10 sqft18750 Wildflower Dr, Penn Valley, CA OVERVIEW: Freshly painted wood with new Porsche door to complement the beautifully colored maple floor. Pets: Large dogs. Zestimate: $3,334 mo. (Zillow thinks it’s worth over $3,000 mo.- what a bargain.) How the hell is this even allowed?
it builds itself up like OKAY WE FOUND THESE DEVASTATING RESULTS
and then you go in to look and you find it had a sample size of 40
and then you’re like okay, what was the fantastic difference between these 40 people when sleeping with and without a dog
and the article is like
…so you get through it and you’re like you’re trying to tell me you think this is substantial in any capacity, this 40 sample size 3% difference ass bullshit??????????? you fucking shitforbrick bad at math fake ass science losers?
these scientists hate dogs
Your sample sizes are small your standard deviations are high your conclusion means nothing and YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD
this has so many fundamental problems it isn’t even science. it’s anti-dog propaganda.
