Reblogged from amatteroftastepodcast
what happens if u put a werewolf on the moon is a great question probably the best question ever asked
Ok, so does anyone remember the Russian movie Night Watch? If you watched Fox’s horribly mutilated North American cut, my condolences. Anyway, the film’s
loosely based on inspired by a pretty good series of books, which eventually go into the nature of magic in that universe. And it’s basically like a static field generated by all of the Earth’s people and everyone has some sort of interaction with it, even the non-magical humans (being a non-magical human just means your interaction with it is to be completely neutral to it). So when you leave Earth, you lose your magical abilities/nature entirely and become just a human. And if you didn’t know that and chose to leave the Earth via magical means as opposed to, say, a spaceship… let’s just say there’s a vault with a corpse of a vampire who burnt up on re-entry into the atmosphere.
TLDR: there’s a fantasy book series that answers this question with, “The werewolf would stop being a werewolf and die a horrible death, unless actual astronaut with actual space-faring gear.”
P.S.: Completely unrelated, the books contain one of my favourite dialogue exchanges: “Will [location] be private enough?” “Sure, people don’t go there.” “What about tourists?” “Tourists aren’t people.”
P.P.S.: Ask me why the vampire was in space to begin with. It was for the greater good!
P.P.P.S: Ok, but Tiger Cub died in book 2 and now I’m sad… I loved her. That was bullshit.
Reblogged from seananmcguire
realistically the space under my bed is very small so if a monster did in fact live there it would have to also be very small
it would be some kind of baby monster
i would have to look after it
That is exactly how I combated childhood fears as a kid! I couldn’t convince myself that the monsters weren’t real, but it was logical that they were very very little.
Reblogged from seananmcguire
Dylan Marron, SDCC 2014 (via kaihugstrees)
Reblogged from dduane
One of the most fascinating things about the same-sex marriage battle has been the evolution of the arguments against gay unions. Not long ago, gays and lesbians were not only considered unsuitable parents; they were an active danger to children, child molesters and abusers. Kids raised by same-sex couples were said to fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.
No such arguments were made in Chicago on Tuesday, where lawyers for Wisconsin and Indiana did their best to defend their states’ bans on same-sex marriage before a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Their line of attack against gay marriage was quite the opposite: Gay parents are too responsible to need marriage.
That’s right — lawyers for Indiana and Wisconsin claimed that because a “fleeting moment of passion” can produce offspring, straight people need marriage as an incentive to stay together and raise their “unintended children.” Gay people, on the other hand, have to think and plan a lot harder if they want to be parents, so marriage doesn’t concern them. In other words, because an ill-considered, alcohol-fueled romp between two straight people can lead to a baby, gays shouldn’t be able to marry.
[REELS AWAY CLUTCHING HEAD]