scottdisco
rip this joint please
sensual modernity
sorry this is for Tea
sorry this is for Tea
The (lack of the) Mysterious
- Thread starter zhao
- Start date
-
- Tags
- animism vs. cybernetics black athena broad cumbucket dubstep for the love of god stop guru josh hunting & gathering magical mystery tours meta-rational non-rational phantom flan flinger protracted flame wars psychic self defense situationism spirits spurious loaded questions superstition sweaty anal sex tasty hunter gatherers techgnosis the hooded claw zhao has an opinion!
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Remember how Henry VIII killed all those wives (in part) because they failed to give him sons? Remember how throughout history women have been blamed when a son isn't produced, or when infertility strikes a couple?
Well, it was science that forever laid that one to rest. It's the spermatozoa/spermatogonia that determine the sex of an embryo. Females only contribute gametes with X chromosomes, it's up to the male's gametes to determine whether an X or a Y will join the ovum's X to form either a girl or a boy, respectively.
So thanks to science, no more putting women to death because they fail to produce sons.
It's also scientific research that proved that, in 50% of cases, it's the male in a couple who is largely responsible for their infertility.
So thanks to science, no more blaming women for being "barren", "dry", "frigid", etc., then divorcing them and leaving them to starve or stoning them to death, whichever comes first...
Well, it was science that forever laid that one to rest. It's the spermatozoa/spermatogonia that determine the sex of an embryo. Females only contribute gametes with X chromosomes, it's up to the male's gametes to determine whether an X or a Y will join the ovum's X to form either a girl or a boy, respectively.
So thanks to science, no more putting women to death because they fail to produce sons.
It's also scientific research that proved that, in 50% of cases, it's the male in a couple who is largely responsible for their infertility.
So thanks to science, no more blaming women for being "barren", "dry", "frigid", etc., then divorcing them and leaving them to starve or stoning them to death, whichever comes first...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I only hand it out when the recipient is so richly deserving. I'm done, though. there's no breaking through that kind of self-delusion. I'm sure the weretigers of Borneo will appreciate Zhao's "eclectic" DJ sets, anyway.
you know I'm with you 110% there Scott! anyways, the whole point was they had a scientist to reign in Mulder's wild flights of fancy. a smoking hot scientist, of course. hotter than the sexy robot, even.
thanks i understand that the x files is just a tv show, i am an adult.
No this guy was a scientist a genuine bona fide paid up one working in some area of esp or something, not ghouls and ghosts which isn't what i said at all in the first case.
I don't think this quote is much use.
First of all does it make any strict kind of sense to say that most people who claim to see fairies are 'pretending'? Some might be of course, but it doesn't sound like a very precise description or understanding of the phenomenon to me. OK, it's obviously a flip dismissal but no good as an example of rationality.
Then if you are going to make this kind of statement as if it somehow explains everything you would have to show that you can explain what 'seeing' is and what the perception of 'beauty' is.
So all it's really saying, without being able to explain any further, is that it can be enough to stand and behold, which I think you'll find is what a good many 'mystics', monks and other philosophers maintain.
Heh, that's entirely different isn't it.
Dead end, yeah well of course you never know, but that's kind of what I was saying earlier. Just because we live in a scientific technological society doesn't mean there isn't mystery or wonder nearby if you want to look for it.
grizzleb
Well-known member
Yeah, thats what most people have been saying. I'm amazed daily at the world in general. I think this song kinda sums things up...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
mistersloane
heavy heavy monster sound
Yup
mistersloane
heavy heavy monster sound
I don't really do other people's dreams but...
Necrophagia was/is a way of symbolically taking the power of your enemy/the person you love/some random stranger for yourself, the mummy represents the queer theory book.
Either that or Albert Fish better look out cos you're after his record. I think killing and eating theorists would be very satisfying.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Massrock, why is it that you always come into a thread really late, and then restate what people have already been saying throughout the whole thread, and then insist this is somehow a new insight that other people just don't get?
It's really a pattern with you.
Mistersloane: that makes sense to me.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Don't waste mine with your typically poorly worded, vague posts full of 8th-grade caliber discussion points.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with Sagan on the whole thing about understanding the number one being really heady and deep and hard to do.
Even individual cells (which don't have brains or neurons or anything) can count.
What business is it of yours at which point I choose to contribute to a thread? Is there a schedule?
As with any other reasonable person what I say and think will probably at times be in partial or complete agreement with the opinions of others. Er, why the fucking fuck not?
The point in this case, as if it needs justifying to you in any way, is, in part, to offer my take on the discussion and to lend support to a point of view in my way, just as others have. I think that's often how group debates work towards some kind of resolution or a clearer understanding - similar things may be expressed a number of different ways and approached from different angles. But again what fucking business of yours is it how I or anyone else chooses to contribute here, unfounded personal attacks aside?
Actually I was of course paraphrasing what I myself had already said. Which is funny because when I did say what was essentially the same thing then, you described it as "Not even sort of true. Not even vaguely true. Full of a bunch of tired strawmen.", without any kind of explanation or engagement. Now it's what everyone is saying, hmm.
Your original response was pointless and almost entirely nonsensical and you know it so now you're pathetically lashing out. You could have just ignored my post, or even read it properly but you had to type some cheap useless dismissive reply before even thinking and now you're crying and acting like a dickhead.
So it's kind of amusing that while my original post was more or less taking issue with what the OP (who you've disagreed with throughout this thread) seemed to be getting at, you've sort of lent support to his argument. Well of course you haven't really, but it does demonstrate for the billionth time how sometimes people aren't really engaging with what's on the page in these discussions, just busy fighting phantom enemies or perpetuating old grudges.
So let me get this straight, somehow according to you I am in some special category where I may not express a similar opinion to other people and agree with them? I'll try and be more consistently contrarian in future.
You've got problems. And don't worry I absolutely realise this is in no way 'a new insight that people just don't get'.
A pattern you think you see.
But then I suppose we do all have our patterns of behaviour, eh yesmad?
Last edited: