The only thing that was scarier than gangsters was that they were cultured, right? thanks
This sentence was correct to a certain extent. In novels, villains were often depicted as people with no moral bottom line or even hooligans. However, some villains might become more cultured and more terrifying. For example, they might learn how to use power and skill to deceive others, or they might master some kind of magic or skill to make themselves more powerful. Therefore, this sentence means that even if a hooligan is cultured, as long as he remains a hooligan, he may still be dangerous. In contrast, if a person was cultured and could control his own desires and behavior, he might become a safer and more reliable character.
The only thing that was scarier than gangsters was that they were cultured, right?
In some cases, this sentence is reasonable because some hooligans may seem to be misbehaving, but they may not have a high level of education. They may only use some simple means to achieve their goals, and these means may not be legal. However, under certain circumstances, it was not advisable for a hooligan to be cultured. If a person only learned some superficial skills and methods but did not have real culture and quality, then he might still be a hooligan. On the contrary, if a person had rich cultural knowledge and accomplishment but used improper means to achieve his own goals, then he was also not desirable. Therefore, this sentence was correct in some cases but not necessarily correct in some cases.
Which novels were not only good but also cultured?
I recommend the following novels to you: 1. "Know Me and Remembrance of the Past": This novel has a rich plot, vivid characters, exquisite descriptions, and sincere emotions. It was a good ancient romance novel. 2. "He's Waiting for Dawn in the Distance": This is a modern romance novel. The plot is deep and the description is touching. This novel had a memorable emotional story and a beautiful life. It was definitely a novel with self-restraint. 3. "The Sunset and the Flowers": This is a modern romantic novel of a wealthy family. The plot is compact and fascinating, and the characters are three-dimensional. The female protagonist in the story turned adversity into motivation, and her spirit of fighting for herself and her family was admirable. I hope you like this fairy's recommendation. Muah ~😗
The woman was cultured, but she often cursed. Nothing, right?
The situation described by this sentence was not desirable in real life. Women should respect and tolerate each other and not insult others at will. Being cultured didn't mean that a person could be uncultured. It was very important to respect the language and behavior of others. We should face all kinds of problems in life with a positive attitude, respect others, tolerate others, and make progress together.
In the 'hermione is scarier than voldemort fanfiction', what makes Hermione scarier than Voldemort?
Maybe it's her intelligence. Hermione is extremely smart and could use her knowledge in unexpected and intimidating ways that Voldemort, with his more brute - force and dark - magic - based approach, might not anticipate. For example, she could outwit him strategically in a battle of wits rather than relying on raw power like Voldemort does.
Why were cultured people so much more cultured than those old women in the village?
This was a very interesting question. Cultured people usually have more knowledge and cognitive abilities than uncultured people, which helps them make better decisions and display better qualities in all kinds of situations. Cultured people are usually better at learning and innovation because they have more knowledge and skills that can be applied in real life. Through reading, researching, and thinking, they could expand their horizons and ways of thinking to better understand and respond to different situations and challenges. Cultured people usually pay more attention to morality and values because they know that these are the foundation for building good interpersonal relationships and social order. They could learn and practice to cultivate their own moral standards and codes of conduct so as to better protect their own and others 'dignity and rights. Cultured people are usually more open and tolerant because they know that multiculturalism and tolerance are important forces that promote social progress and development. Through reading, communicating and thinking, they can understand different perspectives and cultures and thus better understand and respect different people and cultural backgrounds. To sum up, the reason why educated people are so much better than the old ladies in the village is that they have more knowledge and cognitive ability, are better at learning and innovation, pay more attention to morality and values, and are more open and tolerant.
Why is truth scarier than fiction?
Truth can be scarier than fiction because it is real and often unexpected. Fiction is made up and we can somewhat predict the outcome. But real - life events can be shocking and out of our control. For example, natural disasters or true crime stories. They are not fabricated for entertainment but are raw and unfiltered, which can be quite terrifying.
Why is reality scarier than fiction?
Reality is scarier than fiction because it lacks the safety net of 'it's just a story'. In a fictional book, you can close it and walk away. But in reality, issues like poverty, inequality, and political unrest are always there. We can't escape from the harshness of the real world as easily as we can put down a fictional tale.
Is 'Do the Right Thing' a True Story?
No, it's not. 'Do the Right Thing' is a fictional work created by the filmmaker for entertainment and to convey certain messages and themes.
Are Resident Evil novels scarier than the games?
It depends on the person. Some might find the Resident Evil novels scarier because they can go into more detail about the psychological horror. The novels can describe the characters' inner thoughts and fears in a way that the games might not be able to. For example, they can really build up the sense of dread when a character is alone in a dark, infected area.
When there were two things in the article and only one thing was mentioned in the question, how could one judge whether it was right or wrong?
If there are two things in the article and only one thing is mentioned in the question, two aspects need to be considered to determine whether it is right or wrong: 1. Contextuality: If the context provided in the question has already explained the validity of one thing, you can use this context to determine the validity of another thing. 2. Complete the missing information: If the context provided in the question does not explain the correct thing, you need to judge the right or wrong according to the information in the article. Generally speaking, the information in the article is usually more comprehensive and accurate than the information provided in the question. According to the information in the article, one can infer the right or wrong of another thing. For example, if the article mentioned "apple" and "pear" and only "apple" was mentioned in the question, it could be inferred that "pear" was wrong. If the article did not mention "pear" but the question provided the context of "pear", then it could be inferred that "apple" was correct. Judging right or wrong required considering multiple aspects of information and needed to be judged based on the context and the completion of missing information.