Found Resident Evil 4 on sale today. The cashier wanted to see my ID. That's the second time someone's questioned my age. Most certainly did not expect that while buying a game.
-----
A doctor is on a mission to save my soul (in a non-religious way, obviously, she's not Räsänen...). I went there because my back hurt for a third day and she ended up giving me a cross examination on my social life (or lack thereof, more like). Told her it would be a complete waste of time but she insisted I see her again. Whatever.. it's not like I have anything else to do... stupid spring term, always filled with empty spaces between the few lectures there are.
I read a great portion of the discussion on the subject. The general attitude seems to be negative and despite the arguments given by those in favour I have to agree with the pessimists. When the entire exam is based on a single literary work it makes things difficult but when that work is a play, the results can't be very encouraging. I remember not once having a play as part of the courses in the upper secondary school (lukio). We concentrated on prose and occasionally poetry and columns but we never had any written exercise on analysing a play.
1. Millä keinoin Villisorsa-näytelmän ennakkoesittely houkuttelee ihmisiä teatteriin?
As one of the commentators pointed out, the question is ambiguous. Does the YTL want reasons given by the ad to encourage people to come and see the play or just to go to a theatre in general. What I remember from my own exam, my teacher pointed out that the YTL may do this on purpose in order to offer possibilities for variation.
2. Erittele henkilöiden välisiä suhteita näytelmänkatkelman perusteella.
Well, this is probably analogous to the subjects in the old exams that don't require much special knowledge on a particular area but what can be written based on the scool curriculum and one's own opinions. But my teacher also said that one of the things affecting the grade is the amount of other people writing on the same subject. Imagine how many people write about the one subject that does not require much of the special knowledge on theatre or the play itself (although the latter would very much be extremely useful!). Plus (well, actually, a minus) the extract was a bit too long to be read and analysed from three points of view in six hours, at least to someone with my type of analysing style (slow but won't need much revising afterwards).
3. Tutki Villisorsa-katkelman näyttämöohjeita. Mitä tehtäviä niillä on?
Excuse me? Stage directionals? If we never analysed a play, do you think we went through the directionals in the play given to the director, whispere and actors, to name a few. I mean, clearly that's easy for me now after Renessaince literature course (at the time plays were dominating the literary field, prose was overlooked as "women's literature" aka. bad, inferior etc.) but back then: nope. This would be the easiest, less requiring for independent thought, but due to knowing the theatre world well enough to answer to this question is probably the cause it's not that popular subject amongst the laudaturs.
4. Erittele ja tulkitse Villisorsa-katkelmassa esiintyviä symboleja.
Oooo, lovely, lots of Jungian and Freudian interpratation. The more outrageous, the better. "Ajatuksillesi kuulijan saat provosoimalla korkeintaan, maailma on huono." This topic is THE topic for the saying "you can claim anything as long as you can justify it". Yup, pretty much.
5. Millä tavoin arvostelijan mielipiteen kielteisyys näkyy arvostelun kielessä?
After reading the given material, the assignment shouldn't be that difficult. But again, imagine how many others write about this same topic.
There was one commentators saying that getting the full six points out of one of these does not require any backgound knowledge of the given subject. I know that is also what the YTL says but there's a catch: yes, you can pass the exam by relying on the given material.
"Tekstitaidon kokeessa tutkitaan kokelaan kriittistä ja kulttuurista lukutaitoa ja kielellistä ilmaisukykyä. Tekstitaidolla tarkoitetaan kokelaan taitoa eritellä, tulkita, arvioida, hyödyntää ja tuottaa erilaisia tekstejä tietoisena niiden tavoitteista ja konteksteista. Siihen kuuluu myös taito tehdä havaintoja tekstin ilmaisukeinoista ja soveltaa taitojaan sekä tekstin vastaanottamiseen että tuottamiseen." http://abitreenit.yle.fi/yo-kokeet/ohjeet_aidinkieli_tekstitaito
If you write and argue your claims well, you might get five points even if you didn't know about theatre or plays anything in particular. But for those who want the six points, I do think the background knowledge is required exactly because it is not officially required! The ones to stand out amongst the 29 thousand others are the ones that display outstanding knowledge on the subject, knowledge that is not acquired at school but on one's own time! And that's why I would have been very angry if it were me sitting in that room yesterday with this paper: my goal is laudatur, six points of two out of three texts and that would not have been possible with this topic!
One of the notable aspects in the discussion forum was the use of the phrase "[genre X] didn't get much attention *at least in our courses*". Tut, tut: the whole point is that all the writers are given an equal possibility to have the six goddamn points! If one school has a teacher who takes their students to see a play once during each mother tongue course and have them write an analysis of the play, of course this is easy for them! But what about those who have never seen a play by professionals or read a play let alone write an analysis of it? No chance to get the six points.
Have to watch out for the rest: B level Swedish, A level English (which I've been doing ever since my own marticulations just for fun), C level Latin and Italian. The 'reaali' is so weird now that they're separated.
----
My day began so well yesterday, feeling neutral. And then going to the university to have lunch and seeing K there, surrounded by guys as usual. It's a bit like she's "one of the guys" but it's so unnerving to know that whenever I see her with someone, there's at least one guy there with her. What is it that I'm always interested in the straight ones? Where's my fucking gaydar?
Step 1. Agreeing on the definitions of abstract such concepts like 'hypocricy', 'condemnation' and 'unconditional'.
Step 2. The debate.
Lunatic: God's love is unconditional.
Me: Unconditional as in no matter what a person did God loves them anyway.
L: Yes.
M: And you preach God's unconditional love, not Man's conditional love.
L: Yes.
M: So you don't condemn other people?
L: No. I'm a sinner and can't condemn others, only God can.
M: Okay. So if you were a priest would you bless gay marriages?
L: Of course not! The bible says a marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman! It would go against my faith! Gays are perverts!
M: You just not thirty minutes ago yu can't condemn anyone.
L: *baffled* I didn't.
M: You just called me a perv. Which part of that is *not* condemning?!
L: (Hate the sin, not the sinner.) The act is a perversion.
M: Following your own logic, God created every single human being himself. So are you saying that God made a mistake creating me the way you say he did?
L: Of course not! God is omnipotent and all-powerful and etc.
M: With that logic it follows that either God made a mistake creating me lesbian or then your "theory" of God's unconditional love sucks. So which one is it?
L: Neither! God does have unconditional love to all humans and he doesn't make mistakes. It's the *act* that he finds as an abomination.
M: So you're saying God's a mean kid? Waving a piece of meat in front of a dog and pulling it away just when the dog reaches out for it again and again?
L: Of course not! God's omnipotent... blah blah blah...
So. Why is that people like him are fucking idiots when it comes to logical thinking in religious matters?
Earlier last year (somewhere near the blogging of another of his kinsmen on 6th of October):
"What Lot did to his daughters [= instead of giving the male angles which were complete strangers to him to the mob outside, offered his virgin daughters to them "for you to do them whatever you will"] was a M I S T A K E."
During the debate he stated the following:
L: It was a mistake (note the choice of words) of me to say it. I'm sorry."
M: A mistake?!
L: It was a slip.
M: A freudian slip?
L: Yes! Exactly!
M: So now you're apologising for saying that, not for thinking it's wrong? [He believes the bible is god's word literally.]
L: Well...
M: And for your edification: A freudian slip is something that I think fits you perfectly. The concept doesn't mean it was a slip as such but a slip which reflects the way you really think about the matter but don't say out loud for one reason or another. But feel free to see the catch in that: you dont' say it out loud because you *do* know there's something wrong approving that; you not sayign it out loud is in fact your conscious choice. But thanks for proving me right about men. I'm sure your sisters and mother must be so very happy to have someone like you as their close relative.
L: Yes, they are. I love mo mother and sisters-
M: I was being sarcastic.
Also, whenever confronted with actual religious dilemmas such as "on what basis do you decide which parts of the bible are 'old-fashioned' [I know, I didn't expect hearing that word either] or allegories instead of the literal truth?" [after he actually changed his view of the bible being a literal truth through and through] or "how can you derive your moralities from the bible when in fact you don't" or "the bible is self-contradictory: there are rules given out that you don't follow now and rules that order the exact opposites and rules that are so ambiguous that regrdless of what one wants to justify with the bible anyone can do so through interpretation?" [he seems to dismiss some of the practical rules as 'old-fashioned', "God gave them to Isrealites, not us" but on the other hand embrace the abstract commandments as their semantics are more easily twisted].... when confronted with these questions the answer is always the same: "That is a very good question, very good question indeed! You are so intelligent, I've told you that so many times and I feel I still haven't told you that many enough times. And then you're also so pretty and beutiful-" "The answer?" and then he scribbles some bullshit. He won't admit it but deep down he knows he a buillshitter. And a fucking coward to add to that. The general definition of a Christian.
He dismissed my suggestion to read Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' based on the title. When reminded that he himself said he can't condemn others, he just said the title is "blasphemous". I pointed out our definition of 'condemnation' applying to all humans again, and what does he do: "You're so intelligent and you have an amazing memory..." I don't think I'm the only one seeing through that he's in deep shit and that he knows it.
Step 3. He walks away and thus tries to declre himself the winner of the debate. Hardly. But then again, this is a very famous tactique amongst the religious lunatics; how many times TJT has declared himself a winner and fled when he realises he's tangled in his own web of lies and shot himself in the foot and that those that he debates with know it as well.
.... Fucking idiots.
------
The answers to questions he didn't know the anwers to about his own country (despite me telling him that these are the questions you shouldn't have to think about statistics but for the answer to be 'never' and 'everyone') from UNICEF (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/nigeria_statistics.html):
The amount of women circumcised annually in Nigeria (despite the "law" to appease the Westerners):
19 %.
The percentage of female illiteracy in Nigeria:
33 %.
The percentage of women having a skilled attendant at deliveries:
35 %.
The percentage of child marriages:
42 % in total, 52 % in rural areas (a child=under 18 years old)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR148/09Chapter09.pdf: see page 127, table 9.9:
- number of decision to which woman has final say: 0 decision - 1,616 women (5 - 489; there should me no such question in a decent world)
- Number of reasons wife beating is justified: 5-6 reasons - 1,220 women
I am so sending this study to the fucking idiot who pretends to care... although I'm sure he won't read it.
He asked me how could he possibly do anything about that. He reminds me of these African preachers with Rolex watches and silk suits with this disgusting smile on their faces saying something like "It doesn't matter his son died at the age of seven. He can come to me and I'll find him a virgin bride and we can pray together for another son." Makes me want to throw up or beat him up right there until he sees reason!
