I do not know why men hate to shave for a lady the just spent hours to look great when he takes her out. You guys are strange species. You've just spent hours to look 'great' simply to go out somewhere and you think not wasting time shaving (if your partners happy with that) is strange. Now that's strange. Personally I reckon you probably looked better before you started getting ready. My wife wore lipstick and makeup once when she was trying to look 'good' for me before we were going out. Fortunately it was urged by a friend of hers because my thoughts were, oh no, please, bring back your natural skin.
Marry Me, The Vandals... or anti no where league - women for both their style of music and content
I'm pretty sure several aren't making it. <img src="/forum/images/emoticons/angel7.gif" alt="angel7"> No, they're all up there. Regardless of what horrific lives they've lived they'll always have a priest on hand on their deathbed to absolve all their sins to ensure clear passage. Which begs the question as to why anyone would want to go there. Certainly if you're a kid you wouldn't, spending eternity getting touched up by an absolved priest. Jim Jefferies put it best..."And what’s Hell meant to be like? Fire and brimstone? Eternal agony? That’s what written in the Bible; that’s God’s book. As far as I know, the Devil hasn’t brought out a book. We don’t know his side of the argument, right? If you ask me, the Devil and God are having an argument, and the Devil’s being a bigger fuckin’ man. God is writing shit about him, and the Devil is going “I’m not even gonna fuckin’ comment son, if you’re talkin’ about me like that!”Let’s think about this rationally–which isn’t a good point for the Christians, rational thought… Fire, brimstone, and eternal agony: that’s what Hell is like, according to the Bible. God runs the entire universe, except for one place which is run by the Devil. And the Devil is his biggest enemy and they don’t get along whatsoever, right? Now if you act bad, you go to Hell. You’ve lied, you’ve cheated, you’ve stole, you’ve been a prick your entire life… Why would the Devil punish you?? You’re one of his boys! He’s gonna fuckin’ dig you! That’s where all the hookers and drugs are gonna be–they aren’t gonna make their way into heaven! I don’t think God’s gonna open the gate and say “Jim, you’ve been such a good guy. See this big-titted whore with a line of coke on her? Knock yourself out, son!”"
As in reincarnation? Nah.The molecules I'm made of have had interesting 'lives' before they became part of me though. If you just base it on the molecules then I'm pretty much the reincarnation of every large living thing that ever existed, and many that still do, given enough time for the molecules to dissipate throughout the biosphere (especially when you consider CO2 and H2O). The size of molecules and the size of us make it highly likely, excepting many bacteria which are a small enough so that the chance that one of their molecules ends up in the bit of the biosphere that I currently occupy becomes small enough to be considered.
I was seeing this girl once who could barely read. She would literally fuck up words she saw all the time. Like, Chanel No. 5 she would pronounce channel (like a TV channel) no (like the opposite of yes) and the 5 she would get right. She was the hottest fucking chick I had ever been with, insanely hot. She was so hot she didn't even have to learn how to read. That's a special power in itself. And I was seeing a girl once who was also gorgeous. Mauritian girl with what seemed to be all the best bits of all the races that populated those isles. She was also very sweet, not an angry bone in her body. Unfortunately she was also dum as a post and conversations went nowhere. She named her kids after her favourite actors, bad ones. She was however smart enough to realise that I was only chasing sex from her, I'll give her that much.But allthough she was stunning to look at and a nice person, I'll have much stronger feelings, including erotic ones, to someone with a brightness in their eyes from connected conversations and ideas.
Electrons both do and do not exist. They only occupy space and time once they have been observed, prior to that they only theoretically exist. That's not philosophy, that is a major building block of quantum mechanics. Not exactly fact, but a theory that has withstood all attempts to disprove it, so pretty close to fact. Apply the same principle to sound (not a perfect analogy, I admit, though the substance sound waves pass through is partly made of electrons) and the sound only exists in theory until it is heard, and then it actually exists.Thus, the sound both does and does not exist. Like Schrödinger's fucking cat.This would be a lot more fun to talk about if we were in a dorm room doing bong hits. Actually, the cat exists in Schrodinger's thought experiment, it's the state of the cat that's indeterminate, dead or alive.Similarly with electrons (though not sure why we're focusing on them for sound waves) and other fundamental particles - well everything really, just that the bigger and more complex they get the less that quantum effects are measureable. With the 'particles' the indeterminacy is in it's spin state, it's position and momentum, not whether it exists or not. They exist but as a probability wave, they effectively exist everywhere with a superposition of states with greater or lesser probabilities until interacting with other particles collapses the wave..Whether something really exists or not until measured isn't quantum mechanics but is fundamental philosophical question that relates to anything. And really even after measurement, does it exist. In observing the toaster here I'm actually seeing the photons hitting my eyes from something that are then interacting with the rods and cones in eyes causing chemical reactions that fire action potentials down my neurons which then go through multiple layers of processing before the image I've developed is observed by the minds eye that my experience tells me is a toaster. Similar occurs with all the senses, and with our readings of measuring devices.I could take the solipsistic point of view and say nothing exists but my disembodied consciousnessI agree, as bizarre as quantum mechanics is, it's the best tested and most solid theory in science due to the ability to collect prodigious amounts of data rapidly while eliminating unwanted variables.
Well you can say that if you want, but you are scientifically incorrect. Sound only occurs when you have something that can transform audible waves into a sound. Otherwise it's just vibration. Humans use the vibration from a falling tree and turn into sounds. Some creatures use the vibrations of air/matter to 'see'. In either instance, it's simply a cause of the perception of the brain to transform those waves into sound or sight.Another perfect example of this would be radio waves. The question could equally ask 'as a radio wave passed your house, if you didn't have a radio antenna would it make a sound?'Of course it wouldn't. At any given moment, you've got 100's (potentially more?) of radio waves passing through your house, and you never hear it until you turn on the radio (and you can even see it, with the static of your TV being the cause of radio waves too- some even being the radio waves created from the big bang!) So the falling of a tree is only turned into a sound when you have a 'radio antenna' (or ear) that turns it into a sound (or noise, if it's particularly unpleasant) No time here, got to get to work, but the vibrations are the sound. Once again though it's a daft semantic argument we're entering into. We both accept the fact that the vibrations are there, you simply choose not to call them sound. And it's not very scientific to say 'I KNOW'. Knowledge is never absolute. There are always uncertainties, even when they become vanishingly small.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/soucon.htmlunder sound propagation, this..."Sound propagates through air as a longitudinal wave. The speed of sound is determined by the properties of the air, and not by the frequency or amplitude of the sound. Sound waves, as well as most other types of waves, can be described in terms of the following basic wave phenomena. "Radio waves are not sound, they're electromagnetic vibrations that exist regardless of whether we decide to detect them and then turn them into sound waves that our ears then covert into firing neurons abstracted from the sound itself. Though with electromagnetic waves we are more directly confronted with the world of quantum effects which complicate the matter somewhat. Some say they don't need a medium, others would say we don't understand the medium yet.
I understand that... That's why I said yes, technically, it makes it a sound. But that is not the point of the question. The question was first asked by a philosopher, not a scientist ;) Philosophy not underpinned by science, not underpinned by what we actually know about the world is cod philosophy, and not worth bothering with. The best philosophers always worked with the best science of the time.
Just saw thisI'm a bit of a science geek and this stuff interests me, so I'm not trying to sound argumentative or arrogant here, but 'sound' doesn't travel in air or matter, but rather shock waves travel through air and matter.So you are right in that the shock waves will travel regardless of a human presence or not, but only when an ear, or a mechanical instrument capable of doing the same thing, converts those waves to sound, does it actually become a soundHence, if a tree fell and no one was around, would it make a sound?No.But, you could argue that even if a human wasn't there, then there would be plenty of other creatures able to convert the waves into sounds! I would say that sound doesn't need a measuring device (ear or otherwise) to exist, excepting that we needed to have such devices to know that sound exists in the first place. This also accepting that sound will always occur when anything moves through a gas or the gas moves relative to other masses (of whatever matter phase). Also accepting that there isn't some as yet unforeseen phenomena that can provide an exception, such as something causing a vacuum around a falling tree. Ridiculously unlikely, just highlighting that nothing is ever 100% certain.However the question was whether a tree makes a noise (which is not how the question is usually couched in terms of sound). A noise is an unpleasant sound. Unpleasantness is an intentional state requiring a conscious entity and so therefore if there is no intentional being around to detect the tree falling, and that also doesn't like the sound of the tree falling (a logger might quite enjoy it) then it won't make a noise, just an unrecognised or recognised pleasant sound.But as per always with these type of arguments, they get bogged down in semantics.
One thing you can say about Lush forums. They cover the big issues.But why isn't there a just tinsel and bauble option, a 'no lights' option or a nothing at all option. A young pine with its dignity still in tact.
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.