Auto news on Youtube Oct 6 2018

The grudge is the movie about a curse that is born when someone dies of extreme anger

or sorrow.

The curse takes the form of a ghost, that's capable of killing whoever it comes into contact

with.

The curse is passed on from person to person and it goes on forever.

It's a terrifying concept to think about.

It's a good thing that a curse isn't born every time someone dies in extreme anger or

sorrow.

But what if the grudge wasn't just a film, what if the grudge was real.

Lets imagine what it would be like, at least for the next few minutes.

Hello and welcome back to life's biggest questions.

I'm charlotte dobre.

If this is your first time here, smash the thumbs up, subscribe and notification bell

and ask us a question in the comments below.

And if you want to connect with the creative team behind life's biggest questions, the

links to our social media accounts are posted in the description box down below.

The first time I tried to watch the grudge, I actually couldn't get through it, I left

the theatre and watched team America instead.

That's how scared I was.

So you can understand how difficult it is for me to imagine what would happen if the

grudge was real.

But I'm going to do it for you, dear subscribers of life's biggest questions.

The Grudge is an American supernatural horror film released in 2004 that was actually a

remake of a Japanese film called Ju-On: the grude.

And we all know just how much the Japanese love their supernatural horror.

Basically, the premise of the grudge is this.

Every time someone dies while being extremely angry or sad, a curse is born.

The curse appears as an entity where the person died.

The entity is known as an onryo ghost, which is a Japanese term for a vengeful spirit that

can cause harm to the living to try to redress the wrongs it experienced while it was alive.

According to Japanese urban legend, An onryo driven by vengeance has the power to cause

their enemy's death, and also cause natural disasters.

The people who encounter the curse die, and then the curse is subsequently reborn and

passed from victim to victim.

Hense the name of the film, the grudge.

First things first, If the grudge was real, it would mean that every time anyone was murdered,

a curse would be born.

Unless the person who was murdered died without being angry or sad, but I would imagine that

being murdered is a pretty traumatizing experience.

Being murdered by a lover would definitely cause anger, or even extreme sadness, even

if the victim only felt those emotions for a short period of time before they died.

But if the grudge was real, it would give victims of murder a chance at revenge..

The story of the grudge dictates that the curse will appear as an entity wherever that

person died.

As we know, murderers often return to the scene of the crime that they committed.

It would mean that all victims of murders would have a chance to kill their murderers.

If the grudge was real, it could mean that people would be far less likely to commit

murders.

Knowing that it's possible that the person who you killed could inevitably come back

as a vengeful spirit, that could then kill you would make a lot of people less likely

to commit murder.

I mean its not rocket science, you commit first-degree murder because you want to get

rid of someone.

The idea of your victim coming back for revenge is just not on the table.

I mean, you could technically avoid the curse as long as you stayed away from the place

where you committed the murder, but what if that place was your house?

If you committed murder in your house, you would inevitably have to move.

But this creates a problem that would end up with you being caught.

Whoever moved into your house after you would then encounter the curse, and likely die.

If the police knew about the death curse, it would be pretty difficult to get away with

murder.

Every person that lived in your house after you would die from the curse, and it all started

with the murder that was first committed.

All the police would have to do is figure out who the curse started with, and boom,

they know who the murderer is.

Then also address the curse being born out of the people who die of extreme sorrow.

Remember, its not just someone that dies in anger, The curse can also be born if you have

died of extreme sorrow.

An example of people who die of extreme sorrow could be prisoners of war.

Imagine what would have happened if the grudge was real in nazi Germany.

The combined sorrow from all of the prisoners at nazi death camps would have essentially

wiped out the Nazis.

Another example of someone who dies of extreme sorrow is someone that commits suicide, and

sadly, a lot of people commit suicide.

About 1.4 percent of all deaths are suicides.

Essentially someone that's suicidal that knew about the curse could use their suicide

to get back at people who have wronged them.

A suicidal person could send out messages to the people who have wronged them asking

them to visit, then kill themselves so that the curse is born, and then when they are

visited by someone, for example an ex lover, the curse would kill that person.

And according to scientists, you really can die of a broken heart.

According to a study At Harvard medical school, if someone significant in your life dies,

your risk of heart attack increases to 21 times higher within the first day, and within

the first week, 6 times higher.

It's the combination of stress, a lack of sleep and forgetting to take medication that

puts people who are mourning at risk.

Essentially if the grudge was real, we would all be pretty much screwed.

I know we say that a lot on this channel, but its true.

Think about it.

Every time someone dies of extreme anger or sorrow, a curse is born, and every time someone

came into contact with the curse, they would die, likely of extreme anger or sorrow, and

it would go on forever and ever until the end of time until there would be no one left.

Well there you have it, these are just a few examples of what I think would happen if the

grudge was real.

Let me know what you think would happen in the comments below.

For now, I'm charlotte dobre and you've been watching life's biggest questions.

If you wanna go on an LBQ binge, check out the playlist that's clickable on the screen

right now.

And don't forget to turn on those notifications, and we will see you in a future episode of

life's biggest questions.

For more infomation >> What If The Grudge Was Real? - Duration: 5:01.

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

What If The Bible Was Never Written? - Duration: 7:57.

The bible, in some form or another, dates back over two thousand years.

The existence of this book has had a profound effect on humanity and forms the basis of

Christianity as a religion – a religion shared by nearly one third of the planet.

Hello and welcome back to Life's Biggest Questions – the channel that looks to answer

a plethora of questions…sometimes serious, sometimes not.

We don't believe that curiosity killed the cat, we believe it made it wiser.

I am your host Rebecca Felgate and today we are asking What if the Bible never existed.

Okay, so this is a controversial one because people are usually a little emotional when

it comes to what they believe in.

In this video I am not discussing whether or not god is real – we have already made

a video like that on this channel which you should check out.

Can we have a positive comments section where you guys let me know if you are religious

and if so, what religion you support?

So, I don't want to shock you, but THE BIBLE doesn't exist.

When we talk about the bible, generally speaking we are talking about King James Edition from

1601, but even now there are 6,000 different books in print publication that claim to be

the bible.

Old testaments, new testaments, additional books for Catholics, varying translations.

The bible, as the collection of books have become known, is made up of scripture that

dates back to many different time periods.

The Old Testament is heavily based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written around

400 BCE.

A genuine concern regarding the bible is that there is no discussed singular author who

can be held accountable for the text, which means we can't measure their credibility.

Religious texts are as confusing, if not more so, that government legislation – which

some critics may argue are purposefully confusing and inaccessible in order to discourage people

from delving too deeply.

I am just wondering – who here is religious and has independently read their own religious

book cover to cover?

Would organized religion be less of a hinderance for universal social progression if there

wasn't a text people literally have taken as gospel?

Many bible critics say that the text is outdated and was written in a time that is too far

removed from our own.

The early parts of the bible was written at a time when there where just 170 million people

on earth – we are now honing in on 8 billion.

Not only were the originally words of the bible in a language nobody speaks and barely

understands, but things have really changed!

We no longer live basic existences.

The problem is with an old book is that it documents a window into a life we don't

lead anymore.

Without the bible, perhaps social evolution would have been smoother and come a lot quicker.

Society is a culmination of millennia of working things out for ourselves, but the bible immortalizes

behaviour we have grown out of for good reason – for example, slavery.

Without the bible, perhaps people would stop finding excuses to behave in ways we no longer

deem acceptable.

Perhaps if there was no text dictating what is right and wrong – people would feel a

deeper connection to what god means to them and their connection to religion, rather than

being TOLD what god means and TOLD how to feel about certain issues.

In some ways, perhaps without a bible we would feel a deeper sense or responsibility for

the actions.

If you need a book to teach you what's up….

Then something has gone wrong… right?

Perhaps if the bible hadn't been written and our experience of god was purely faith

based, we wouldn't have felt the need to fight so many ideological wars throughout

the course of history.

Most God based religions have very similar core values - if from the beginning we had

accepted that the way we practice those values was a little different from each other and

had no literary basis for comparison then perhaps we wouldn't have been so adamant

that other people were right or wrong.

The European religion wars, for example, spanned the 16th and 17th centuries and killed 10

million people – a sizable chunk of the population.

Would these wars have taken place without the bible?

That is up for debate.

If there was no bible, would this mean that there is no Christianity?

I don't think so.

The bible is important, but surely a book doesn't matter as much as the faith itself?

Perhaps Christianity at its core would probably exist, it just might not have its offshoots

and labels.

If the bible didn't exist, would churches?

If there were no Christian churches, the architecture of Europe and The Americas would be pretty

different.

Most early settlements were built around churches.

But…honestly, if the bible didn't exist, I would say the church would still definitely

exist – people innately feel the need to have their beliefs discussed and validated

in groups and churches are as much a social phenomenon as they are a religious one.

If there was no bible then religion may be less structured but that doesn't mean there

wouldn't be people claiming to speak the word of god.

We may have less books in circulation but we may have more profits, which possibly would

open a whole can of worms when it comes to who or what is legitimate.

Would some so called profits try and convince people that their way of understanding religion

is the right way – and in which case, instead would we open ourselves up to a number of

different cults….

And if so….we're back at the warring again!

Oof.

Would power and class structures have evolved differently without a religious text?

Up until the 20th century, swathes of people were illiterate so couldn't even read the

bible that existed anyway, but that didn't stop them believing in god – however it

did make them more vulnerable to control by those who did have the ability to read and

interpret.

To be honest, it is hard to fathom a world without a bible – as nice as it sounds that

we could all have a personal understanding and relationship with spirituality, humans

LOVE documentation.

From early cave man drawings and Egyptian hieroglyphics, it is clear that humans as

a species feel a strong connection with their beliefs and want to reflect that somehow.

Like I said, we also seek huge affirmation and validation when we can share the way we

believe with other humans…for individuals, we sure love conformity….we don't like

feeling different.

If the bible hadn't been written – how long would it have been until another text

was held as definitive.

Having something in common is important to people – the bible allowed for people from

different cultures and backgrounds to communicate, agree and therefore bond over something.

The teachings in the bible were hugely influential in the way in which European and American

societies developed.

A lot of laws and morals we know and abide by today can be traced back to the bible….

Or can they?

They must have already existed beyond the point in which they were written, if not they

wouldn't have been written, right?

But I suppose the bible gave clout to them and made them enforceable.

To be honest, for better or for worse, the bible was written and is so deeply ingrained

in how Western society has developed and how our history has unfolded that is impossible

to answer this question in the space of five minutes… but it does spark some interesting

thoughts and points of discussion.

It also is important to take a few moments to apply critical thought to what see and

take for granted.

What do you think the world would be like if the bible was never written?

Let me know in the comments section down below.

Again – keep it open minded and keep it kind.

If you like these types of video – let us know

For more infomation >> What If The Bible Was Never Written? - Duration: 7:57.

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

🔥 Ten-meter pneumatic gun! What is capable of? - Duration: 13:56.

For more infomation >> 🔥 Ten-meter pneumatic gun! What is capable of? - Duration: 13:56.

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

Yes, the FBI's Kavanaugh investigation was a sham — but here is what Democrats should do about it - Duration: 3:50.

The reopened FBI background check on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was always going to be something of a sham

Consider how the request by Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona was originally worded in the Judiciary Committee meeting last Friday:   Until that moment, it had been assumed that the Republicans were going to "plow through," as promised by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

When Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said they were with Flake, McConnell and the White House knew they had to go along

They didn't have the votes.  Nonetheless,  the fix was always in. Flake's request for a short investigation "limited in scope to the current allegations that are there" was wide open to interpretation

Which "current allegations" were they talking about? At that point, two other women had come forward following Christine Blasey Ford's initial accusation, and there was ample reason to investigate whether Kavanaugh had committed perjury multiple times during the hearings

 Everyone was aware by this time that the Senate had no authority to order the FBI to reopen the background check

It was up to the White House to issue that directive. What this meant in practice was that the White House would likely burn up time on the clock as much as possible and ensure that the "scope" would be very limited indeed

And that is exactly what happened.  This was cleverly disguised in a fog of shifting responsibility and presidential comments that left everyone scratching their heads about what was really going on

When asked whether he had limited the FBI investigation, President Trump said on Saturday, "They're going to do whatever they have to do, whatever it is they do

They'll be doing things that we have never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine

" Later on Twitter he said, "I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion

"  That sounded as if the White House had decided to allow the FBI to do its job as it normally would

Experts all said this would be something the bureau could easily accomplish. After all, the FBI has thousands of employees and tremendous capacity

But reporters were already hearing that the White House would actually only allow the FBI to interview four people

Then the stories changed and nobody really knew what was happening.  The White House insisted it would defer to the Senate, while senators insisted it was out of their hands and the White House was in charge

On Wednesday the investigation was concluded and it became clear the FBI had only been permitted to interview six people, which did not include either Kavanaugh or Ford

Meanwhile, dozens of other people were coming forward with corroborating evidence, offering to make statements under oath

They received no response from the FBI.  All of this brings up an interesting conundrum

Theoretically, the FBI had a choice to make here. Trump said publicly, more than once, that he wanted agents to have free rein, follow all leads and do a thorough investigation

Obviously, the bureau was getting other private instructions from the White House

They could have chosen to take the president's public comments as their marching orders rather than the other ones

For more infomation >> Yes, the FBI's Kavanaugh investigation was a sham — but here is what Democrats should do about it - Duration: 3:50.

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

[Clarification time] What is Neurodiversity? - Duration: 3:18.

[music]

There are many emerging terms commonplace in the communities of

differently minded people, which are not as well known outside of these circles.

We wanted to clear up what some of these terms mean, while hopefully entertaining

you with some beautiful scenery we experienced traveling around New South Wales.

Neurodiversity is a term used to describe a different way of processing

information in the brain. This can include differences in processing

sensory information from the environment, interpreting social interaction, focus,

and often differences in processing and coping with overloading stimuli.

Neurotypical is the opposite term to neurodiverse, and describes the most

common way in a population of processing particular information. It's what most

people consider quote-unquote "normal". Some people also use the term allistic,

but this is more specifically an opposite to autism rather than neurodiverse.

The terms neurodiverse and neurotypical are intended to destigmatize

different ways of acting and perceiving the world, and recognize the validity of

a person's unique world experience. They eliminate the need to call someone

"abnormal" or "weird" in a derogatory sense. Neurodiversity is most commonly

used in reference to autism due to the vast differences in information

processing between autistic and non-autistic brains, but they could be

used to describe any significant difference in information processing of

the brain and resultant abilities. Some other community groups who are adopting

this term include those with ADHD and Down's Syndrome.

Diffability is a term often used to replace the word disability, to highlight

the positive aspects of many disorders. The term is intended to highlight the

different talents, abilities and contributions that can come from those

who experience the world in a different way.

Similar to neurodiversity, diffability is most commonly used in reference to autism,

to highlight the different contributions that can arise from processing input in

a different way than the so-called "normal", but can be used for people

from other neurodiverse groups as well.

While a few people may demonstrate the extraordinary talent like those

portrayed in media, the majority of neurodiverse people have much more

subtle diffabilities. The range of diffabilities is as vast as the range of

abilities you can imagine. For instance, they may see colors differently, and

portray this with an unusual painting style, or they may have a different

approach to problem solving and be able to come up with unique solutions

Possibly. Only you can really answer that question. Do some research, watch some

videos, and see if anything resonates with you. If you are neurodiverse,

welcome to the community. And if you're not, you're welcome as well; all

viewpoints are valuable, and we want to be inclusive of all outlooks on life.