Community > Posts By > notquite00

 
notquite00's photo
Wed 02/11/09 12:16 AM
Well of course there are certain subjects you abstain from joking about. Let's put it this way; person A says "I want someone who can make me laugh"...person B is "someone who can make them laugh". So they meet, have some laughs, suddenly person A doesn't really like that character trait because person B would rather laugh at most things that occur rather than get in a pissyfit about it.

People don't know what they want, and for the most part this is true. Though they say they want something, and maybe they truly do...I still say "dreaming is better than meeting the dream.".


Very right. This business of describing what we want of a partner is a bit ridiculous. For things like wanting a girl who leaves close or doesn't smoke, for example, I understand...but personalities are so complex. People saying things like, "I want a guy who makes me laugh and knows how to have a good time," is just ridiculous.

But...I guess people are ridiculous. ;-)


notquite00's photo
Wed 02/11/09 12:13 AM
Or perhaps our reality is a...holodeck program...controlled by a ten year old in the next dimension.


It makes me happy to know that you watch or have watched Star Trek, Jeanniebean. drinks

notquite00's photo
Wed 02/11/09 12:08 AM
Edited by notquite00 on Wed 02/11/09 12:09 AM
Sexual desire.

If you truly love your friend, then I do not think you should separate that into lesser categories.

However it seems to be human emotions are very malleable and plastic things.

So I doubt I speak for anyone but myself.


Sexual Desire - Yes, this is exactly the conclusion I've come to thus far. Love is love. What has been termed "romantic love," in my view, is but Love + Sexual Desire.

I'd be interested to hear other logical arguments for a complicated picture of things. Since I came to the opinion I expressed above, I haven't seen a better description of Love, hence my posing the question to you guys.


Krisma -

As for what you wrote about not having sex with relative...
I agree with what you've written, however one of my professors in 2007 claimed that the dangers of inbreeding are just a stereotype. He claimed that inbreeding is a taboo so sacred to most societies that this stereotype evolved naturally. I'm not sure if he was just screwing with us though. ;-)

Yet another professor of a Genetics class mentioned that the scent we give off contains markers that suggest our genetic makeup. Certain other people smell nice to us because our sense of smell picks up from their scent that they are genetically different from us. Thus, we are programmed to be more attracted (at least in a small way) to people who introduce genetic variation to our gene pool. Interesting, huh?

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:57 PM

So the paradox is, We don't exist.

Yet here we are.


Nothingness is Form and Form is Nothingness.

Buddhist philosophy also mentions this sort of principle. Quantum Mechanics also has found this to be true on a subatomic level: virtual particles spontaneously come into existence then are annihilated. Well, that may sound fantastical, but this understanding has allowed us to explain many things. Anyway...

String Theory tells us that matter/energy can be thought as strings vibrating in a higher dimension. In that sense, we don't quite exist, do we? At least not in the way we think we do. Yet we perceive ourselves and we perceive our surroundings. In actuality, what we experience are just symbols that we can interpret that only represent reality.

...but for all points and purposes, what we experience *is* reality...at least somewhat.

In short, the answer to your question is a pretty big mindf*ck.

Another way of looking at things is to realize that the vast majority of space contained within the boundary of every atom is emptiness. Thus, quite literally, we are principally made of empty space.

O_o

Wow, that's interesting.


Once when I was about 19, I looked up at the stars and suddenly I felt like I was a long long way from home and became very homesick. While looking up there, I felt that I was looking at my home.

For three days I had this home sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I went to visit my parents because I was so homesick, and I sat there looking at them thinking... this is not home, these are not my real parents.

So strange. Eventually that feeling went away.


Very strange indeed. Perhaps your mind and your humanity were playing tricks on your heart. ^_^

Another possibility is to take your experience literally. We were forged in the bellies of stars and we are the children of the heavens. Perhaps there is some residual mark of the birthplace of the atoms that compose you, and perhaps your mind has somehow interpreted this mark as an engram within your memories. O_O

Sounds pretty far fetched, if you ask me, but it's a very romantic idea, isn't it?flowerforyou

That bit about your little brother is sort of creepy, but way cool. What a strange question from a child.

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:37 PM
Edited by notquite00 on Tue 02/10/09 11:40 PM

...No .But will he think next time ? I hope so .The abortion decision is up to the mother it's her body so his posting is a waste of time . Deal with it !


Oh, did you think I got someone pregnant? No, not yet anyways...flowerforyou And hopefully not for a while!

<<<<<thinks abortion should be an open option until the fetus reaches the age of 18.


lmao...good for me it doesn't work like that else I would've been aborted at 13! laugh

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:35 PM

- Government could make it illegal to have more then 1 kid.
- Government could make it illegal to not have more then 1 kid.

Heck why would pregnancy even be where it stops, once a ruling group gets the right to decide about your body then you are there's to do what they want to.



Actually, I fully support Family Planning Policies like the one China enforces. If China hadn't created the policy, everyone would be starving over there just like in India.

Of course, I don't support a One Child Policy, but neither does China. ;-) That's just a rumor over here in the west. A One Child Policy, I feel, doesn't quite account for the complexity of the situation...

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:30 PM

I am pro life..I don't think abortion is a form of birth control...and most women that have them never really over it...the guilt the wondering what if..just my take on it...


Granted, there are some women who use abortion as a casual form of birth control, but those women number very few. Abortion is a serious thing for the majority of people.

I believe in the government protecting its citizens. However, although you are destroying a potential life, there is something else to gain as well. One gains an opportunity to postpone having a child until that child's quality of life can be much better.

Who is to say what will happen in a child's life, that the child would have been better off born now versus four years later? We cannot say for certain, but we can make a good argument that the life of a child of a poor 16 year old might not be as good as the life of a child born to the same mother, but 10 years later when she has an education and some money.


What if your mother had aborted you ?


I know this might be a strange standpoint, but if my mother had aborted me, she might have had another child at a less stressful time. That child might have been able to spend more time with her parents, might have been taught more things by her father, what have you. In short, perhaps it would have been better if my mother had aborted. Am I crazy to admit that? No, nor do I see that as a self-hating statement. I'm a realist and I try to do the best with what I've got. ;-) And I don't have such a big pride to admit that someone else might have had a better life than me had they been born in my place, but 4 years later.

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:20 PM
A citizen should have no gender in the eyes of the law, I believe. At least in general. ;-)

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:20 PM
A citizen should have no gender in the eyes of the law, I believe. At least in general. ;-)

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:16 PM

Russians are bringing online an Iranian nuclear reactor.

read it here:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061938.html


Will USA launch a pre-emptive strike against Russia too? Because it has to. They are going to be there (russians) when the nuclear plant goes online, so do you think it's wise to throw around words like Biden, that "if Iran doesn't stop it's nuclear activity , we will launch a pre-emptive strike" ?

What is this, if not war-mongering?




If we were really smart, it'd be us helping Iran out, and not the Russians. Imagine if we were the ones supervising the project, working with Iran, helping Iran deal with its future oil shortage? Irani-US relations would be fantastic and this business of being afraid of nukes would be non-existent. In fact, if our countries were good friends, you'd imagine that Iran would help us out if **** ever went down.

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:12 PM

Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1968 international agreement designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, a fact that has often been used by opponents to criticize Israel. But, Israel has few options for strategic defense against the massive capabilities of its enemies, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and their Scuds. While signing the treaty would eliminate a propaganda tool against Israel, the loss of the weapons would be too high a price for Israel to pay.

I Say More Power to them if they Dodrinker


Sure, more power to them, perhaps, but then I'd also have to say to Iran: "More power to you guys if you can make nukes too!"

You may say Iran is a crazy radical government, but I'd reply that we ought to examine our friend Israel a bit. Israel hasn't shown itself to be much better than Iran. This Israeli-Palestinian impasse has gone on for how long now? How long has Israel lived outside the scope of international law? Decades --


notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 11:07 PM

"What does "perturbé chats" mean, btw?". My French is extremely rusty and please feel free to correct my translation if I've made a mistake- "perturbé chats" = disturbed cats.



Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. However...

"Chats perturbés" means "disturbed cats."

"Perturbé chats" means "cats disturbed" except the adjective doesn't agree with the noun, not to mention the word order is backward.

SO:
"Preuve, il y a des manières multiples de peler mentalement - perturbé chats." Means...PROOF! There are multiple ways to peel it mentally. And P.S. You all are cats, but only one of you is disturbed!

lmao I must just suck at French. >_O


Lol, as for whether the Stimulus Package should include a clause about buying American goods, in particular steel, iron, etc....I think it may be the wrong way to do it.

A perhaps better way to do it would to throw tariffs or something similar on foreign goods so as to give American goods a fighting chance, but not complete superiority in the market. This would encourage more competition between the American industries and the Industries (cough CHINA/INDIA), rather than give American industries a monopoly over the American market. Ultimately, that sort of thing would benefit everyone...

Then again, does anyone know the mechanism by which the government would encourage the sale of domestic goods? Is it a tightening on imports or is it a huge tariff or what?

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 04:20 AM
Edited by notquite00 on Tue 02/10/09 04:20 AM

He's God - he's omnipotent. He thought that the earth should be made and it was made.


So they say... but how does anyone know that God is omnipotent?
Even if I were to assume this to be true, that does not explain HOW he did it.

"He thought the earth should be made and it was made."

Then are you saying that the earth was manifested from God's thoughts? Like a dream?

Are you suggesting that this is a thought manifested universe?





First, people don't know he's omnipotent. People claim they know, but in reality, they believe. ^_^

Second, if you like, then yes, "Life is but a dream."
However, that is not at all what I was suggesting. I said exactly what I meant. God conjured us out of nothingness with but a thought.

And I do feel that this describes exactly HOW God created us. He thought, "Let there be THIS!" and there was THIS. Tada, that simple. Further specification is irrelevant because no further specification is necessary or possible: As he thought, so it was!

You have an interesting idea though: For a being as powerful as God, perhaps a dream or thought in the mind of God is complex enough that the characters of his dream have their own sentience and free-will. Interesting thought, isn't it?

Personally, I think a giant, intergalactic robot created us. He did it after millenia of cruising about the galaxy chillin' with his homies. His homies were various species that he met up with. Some were sentient, some were not - meaning some were like us in intelligence, and others were like dogs or cats or what have you, except these beings were his homies, not his pets.

Yeah, so one day he sees this ball of rock and says, "Man, I want to make some life!"
So, he sits and he thinks. Finally, he decides on a method: creates the necessary atoms required for life, puts them in a certain area of the earth, and hits the place with electricity until RNA molecules form. The robot cares for the environmental state of the Earth, carefully changing our solar system about so as to create deterrents to asteroids, to create ample warmth, etc. Constantly, he watches the evolution of RNA into single-celled organisms into multi-celled organisms, etc. Finally, there are humans, and whenever we are almost extinct, he steps in a little to push us in the right direction.
Finally, when he saw that we were doing so-so not to bad on our own, he ups and leaves. That was around 200 AD. In his travels through the galaxy, he every once in a while wonders if those beings he saw evolve will still be alive the next time he visits, or if they'll have gone extinct or migrated to some other planet?

The End.

I think that makes more sense than GOD, so I'll go with it. Anyway, what should I call my new religion, guys?

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 04:03 AM

There are fantastic family planning counselors. And remember, sometimes loving a child so much means loving them enough to let them go. (Adoption). Keep in mind this is a kind, loving, and wonderful option. Keep your mind open to all options available.


My response:

Sometimes loving a child enough to let him or her go also means abortion. Now, I'm a guy, young and inexperienced, so take what I say lightly, of course. However, sometimes an extra mouth makes life extremely difficult for everyone in the family, especially if you are a single parent. It's difficult to say that a child would have been better off not being been born, but...well, sometimes life hands us the short stick, and sometimes the shorter stick is handed to those who grow up in difficult financial/parenting situations. =\

Again, I'm just a stupid 20 year old guy, but...sometimes, we're too afraid to admit that things will be difficult, that it might be better if we let go of that child we love.

Yeah, I don't feel very good saying these things, but anyhow --

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 03:17 AM
This is terribly silly. If the prosecutors did their research, they'd realize that if this particle smasher does, in fact, create black holes (only one of the theoretical outcomes of this experiment), it would imply that tiny black holes are being generated all the time everywhere, just as new subatomic particles form and disappear all around us due to random collisions.

At least this is my understanding of that particular particle accelerator experiment as explained to me by my physics teacher last semester...

Hardly a cause for alarm.


notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 03:12 AM
From the thread in the "Science and Philosophy" section: http://mingle2.com/topic/show/204186

Love --

What is the difference between love that you feel for a friend/relative and love that you feel for someone you are *in love* with?



P.S. I repost this here because the way we think about love is sometimes also heavily affected by our religion.

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 03:07 AM
Edited by notquite00 on Tue 02/10/09 03:09 AM
Love --

What is the difference between love that you feel for a friend/relative and love that you feel for someone you are *in love* with?

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 02:59 AM


Need we say more?

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 02:53 AM
Edited by notquite00 on Tue 02/10/09 02:58 AM


I just found this quotation again from Yann Martel's "Life of Pi". It pretty much sums up my view of the atheism/agnosticism rift:

"I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

What do you guys think? Is there virtue in the uncertainty of agnosticism?


I'm not sure I would call it "virtue," but there is a certain pragmatism in being able to accept the fact that we just don't know something.

I consider myself an atheist, not because I know there is no God, but because I haven't seen any evidence of a God, nor do I feel that there's any need for a God.

But I could be wrong.

I think the transportation analogy is seriously flawed, inasmuch as we can know definitive things about various means of transportation. There's a world of difference between the tangible materiality of a car, say, and the ephemeral nature of (what appears to be to me, anyway) a baseless superstition.






Have you seen any evidence that there isn't a God? I mean, why does a God necessarily have to be the God Judaism/Christianity/Islam describes?





"Captain, the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is 'I do not know.'" -- Lt. Commander Data


Yes!

notquite00's photo
Tue 02/10/09 02:46 AM
Edited by notquite00 on Tue 02/10/09 02:48 AM


well, there's a time and place for funny. as long as you don't over do it, i don't see why it's a problem.


See...how can there be a time and place for it? I like to think there isn't really a time and place for laughter...don't see a purpose in something if you can't laugh at it. Now seriousness, yea there is a time and place for...such as, outside in the back away from me.


Yeah, for the most part, things are taken too seriously and life would be better with more laughter.

However, if someone is really heated up about how thousands of Palestinians are starving out in Gaza, are you going to say..."Well, at least they don't need SlimFast!" ? Some would make a wisecrack like that, which would really piss off some people. I think you'd agree that some things are sensitive and don't need to be made into a joke just yet.
...but even now, you can't joke much about the Holocaust, so maybe somethings are just off-limits.

2 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 20