100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
I haven't found a person within 100 miles of my location who has been on the site within the last month. This is ridiculous. The first thing I look at now is when they were last on-line. Singles are a dying breed... mostly with no offspring. So what do you expect. Give it another ten years, and there will be no recently appearing single within a circle of 600 miles in radius around yourself. Things tend to go from bad to worse, and then the cycle repeats itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
international love
|
|
I know people who it worked for ,so anything is possible When it comes to LOVE distance is never a problem . Thank goodness you're right on this. Because there are so many other problems and obstacles around finding and keeping love already, that I could not bear the thought of one more to keep in mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
international love
|
|
lpt easier if you happen to be in an international location at the time.  I agree strongly, and would only add as another requirement, that you must, absolutely must, exist in three dimensional space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would science be a lot happier if they could say there was no such thing as consciousness? Science is very much aware of the fact that consciousness is part of reality. The reason scientists don't go further into the topic is that there is nowhere to go, after science accepts its existence. Science accepts it, because there are definite and well-observed occurrances of evidence that consciousness in our each individual self exists. Beyond that science can't say anything, because there are no tests we can use to detect its existence elsewhere. We can infer that others have consciousness, because there is evidence that they do, such as their reactions to stimuli are the same as ours, such as they cry in pain, too, when they hit their thumb with a hammer by mistake. However, despite a large and overwhelming amount of reasonable evidence that others have consciousness, it is impossible to sense that directly, and as consciousness by itself goes, we, as scientists, are reduced to give it a probability value when we talk about it in others. The vexing part about it is that to us, to us each individually, our own consciousness is not a probability less than 1, but a certainty. And yet the same thing in others it is a probability less than 1. So this gives rise to skepticism, whether consciousness really exists in others: humans, animals, plants, spirits, objects, concepts. We as individuals and we as a species can't reliably decide that. Because the ratio of the porbability that our consciousness exist, compared to the probability that others' consciousnesses exist, is undefinable. We have no clue of its value, and never will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sun 11/04/12 06:05 AM
|
|
Wux, I guess what I'm saying is that Poor old René went to a lot of trouble to prove that something existed and still missed the boat. Who, or what was Descartes? Did he even know? I doubt it. As brilliant a philosopher and mathematician as he was, he neglected to prove existence itself, (except in the most abstract of ways) choosing instead to try to prove his own existence. I've tried to prove my own existence without making the assumptions that he did. (things like thinking, thoughts, perception, ego and identity really need to be properly defined before we can reason about them) His assumption was that he was an ego (the "I"). If he had properly depersonalized it, then his conclusion would have been the the usual proof of all existence: "Something <process>, therefore something exists." I think he might have saved himself a lot of grief if he'd simply gone with proof by contradiction: 1) Assume nothing exists, 2) Then there are no assumptions. (else at least those would exist) 3) An assumption exists. (1)…contradiction (with (2)) 4) Therefore something exists. Q.E.D. Because he assumed his ego existed at the get-go, he really didn't prove anything, even to himself, because he didn't know what he really was…was he consciousness itself?…was he a collection of quarks? (unheard of at the time as you know)…Was he God?…Was he the entire universe?…How could he possibly know? His fallacy stemmed from his from his belief that he had proved his existence at all (even to himself), because he didn't truly know who or what he was. I guess I should clarify the ego thing. Ego is how we separate ourselves from the rest of the universe (we divide it into self and other). If the ego dissolves, there is no such distinction and (in line with Buddhist nirvana and the New Age schtick) we make ourselves "one with everything" (I usually hold the maya, I mean mayo). There was nothing derogatory in my reference to ego, it is only the way we identify ourselves (fallaciously?) as unique beings (unique existences). Descartes could have approached it that way and noted that if nothing else existed, something did and it happened to be him. (Now THAT's ego! LOL) As it is (or was) , because he didn't know his true nature, he couldn't even prove his own existence to himself. Not gonna fault the guy…it was over 300 years ago and even today, nobody has been able to prove their own existence in the personal sense. (Leastways I can't) In short nobody can prove their own personal existence because nobody knows what they are (see virtual universe thread). I don't buy the proposition that Descartes was simply proving he existed to himself, because if that were the case he'd not have written about it at all, knowing it would be unprovable to everyone else. Was he expecting everyone to take his word for it? I suppose it could be argued that his proof was a positive proof for existence, but there was no need to agonize the way he did over it. You can see by the simple 4 line proof above that the same thing can be accomplished far more easily in a proof by contradiction. You don't have to know who you are in order to still know that you exist. Your argument again is completely off. Is your name Andy from Jarvis Street? "I don't buy the proposition that Descartes was simply proving he existed to himself, because if that were the case he'd not have written about it at all, knowing it would be unprovable to everyone else. Was he expecting everyone to take his word for it?" His proof is valid for himself. He does not have to believe or act on a belief that he is the only one in existence. He is the only one proven to be in existence, but others may also exist, albeit only on a scale of probabilities. You need to refine your conceptualization techniques. Descartes proof, furthermore, is transferable to each individual for himself. "Because he assumed his ego existed at the get-go, he really didn't prove anything" This seems to be a recurrent theme in your criticism of Descartes' proof of his existence as a thinker. That he started with the assumption that he existed. Once more: Descartes did not start with that assumption. He started, instead, with an observation, that he thinks thoughts. This was the starting point of his proof, not his own existence. Please stop saying that Descartes' proof started with the assumption of his own exitence, if you want to appear as if you understand Descartes' proof. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
NO STRINGS
|
|
one night stands are the best  How many rugrats ya gots scattered across the nation?  Hmm, I was wondering how many diseases he has. I don't beleive that it's the quantity that's important... but instead, the quality. The quality of one's diseases. "Ask not what disease ye can get from the nation... ask, instead, what STDs you can give to the nation." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
NO STRINGS
|
|
any women interested in a real ny guy I am sure there are women interested in a nice guy but one night stand; no strings? Seriously; I doubt you will get many replies. Good luck as you are going to need it. Navy girl, time for new contacts. the poster never said he was nice. He called himself a real ny guy, which to me sounds like a lawyer from the Bronx. Ah; I get it. I just figured he was trying to type nice and typed ny. The way people type on this site; I just assumed he made a typing error. My bad. Hey. No sweat. A nice girl like you is usually better when she's bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
international love
|
|
Anything can work and anything can fail. It all depends on the people and their commitment, just like any other relationship You right!! I had a date once with Morgan Fairchild in the seventies... and guess what... she stood me up. That was an example how things can fail to work.  Are you sure you didnt stand her up Wux Well, there was nothing dysfunctional about the standing of it, you're right. You coulda pitcha tent on it to house a kangaroo herd for the night in the torrential rain of Western Australian territory. Around the same latitude as Aberdeen or Didjabringsomebeer. I think its Didjabringsumbeeralong , I see your havin ago, but kangaroo's don't run in herds, it's a mob of roo's, and we dont say You it's ya, so it's . Ya couldnt pitcha tent to house a mob of roo's ova night in the pourin ran of the Northern Territory. I'm gonna educate ya if it kills me. I havta teach ya to talk properly incase ya eva visit us down under. Whadoya recken, good idea jesus. Chaucer was a bowl of cherries compared to this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Drama
|
|
I tend to back away from peeps who are constantly in a drama mode. It is exhausting. I believe you... walking backward 24/7 must be murder on your feet. I treat drama therefore differently. I treat it like a glass door. I walk right up to it and through it. If it`s open, I pass through unharmed. If it`s closed, I bump my nose and end up bloody. Either way, others prefer that over my becoming whiny or Stentorially bombastic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The 1, 000, 000 question
|
|
..., there's more than a few who just want somebody that'll pay off their bar bills. I love paying off some woman`s Bell bill in a Beer bar. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The 1, 000, 000 question
|
|
I hope I do not encounter anyone not showing up,`... This is practically guaranteed. The gods must love you. ;- ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 11/03/12 06:52 PM
|
|
Whoa.
A somewhat thorough yet not anal read of this thread reveals that none of us beleives the world will end within two months. So guess what. We are not the skeptics. we are in fact part of a unified body of constipatory thinkers, who think the world will not end. The skeptics are those who oppose us. And we all know that the skeptics are always right. So the more we tell each other, and preach to the choir, that the world will not end, the more we feed the skeptics, and the world WILL end in forty days. So much for our smart azzes. We wanted to be clever by not being clever, and that made us too clever. Now the whole cosmos hates us. Can`t blame them, can you? You`d hate yourself too, if you were brining down the entire place (universe), together with the whole skit and scaboodle, only by being clever. GAAAAAAAAA!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 11/03/12 06:41 PM
|
|
Will the world end in December? Let's not chance it. Send me all my presents early. Erm.. the bank wants me to prepay my Visa balance before I incur it. The evil idiots don`t want just any old amount; they want the EXACT balance that will be at the end of December. Otherwise their world-end accounting cycle will be screwed, they say, and auditors don`t like that. Their common non-voting shares' stock value may lose a couple of percentage point, due to the fact that they might lose some of their ratings points by Poor and Standard, the world trade bank raters. I hate banks. You need to wait for your presents. Of the future. And to add insult to injury, which is Bush`s fault, you also have to wait for the future. Those industrious capitalist pigs got you by both balls - the one you at when coming, the one you at when going. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descartes said... To think thoughts is impossible without anyone or anything to think those thoughts. Descartes started with the assumption that something besides him existed (thinking and thoughts). Shouldn't he have first proved that something existed in the first place? I think thoughts. For sure, and I know it because I am thinking them. Therefore I am. This is the only empirical truth that is also a priori, yet experiential. In saying "I think therefore I am" he presupposed his own existence ("I")...he "begged the question." consequently, his "proof" of his own existence was fallacious. Not only scientific facts can't disprove this, but pure logic can`t, either. Correct. One's own existence is unprovable. Moreover, the existence of anything outside of the one is unprovable also. Therefore each individual knows for sure he or she exists, for sure. But the existence of other things is not proven, can`t be proven, beyond any degree of doubt. The safest to say is that I exist, and I believe/don`t believe that other things outside of myself exists. Safest to say "I can't prove I exist to anyone but me (as my unique experience makes my existence axiomatic to me). I therefore believe I exist. The existence of anything else is an open and probably unprovable question. Please note that 'I think therefore I am' does not make a statement of the body, or of the thinking person's any attributes. It only makes a statement of the part of the person which does the thinking. It does however, presuppose the existence of ego. Dukky, you would be right, completely, if you consider Descartes' reasoning as one which tries to convince OTHERS of the existnece of Descartes. The proof proves to Descartes that he exists. It is not fallacious in that sense. It is not fallacious in the sense that he uses the proof to prove to others that he exists. It is not fallacious, because Descartes does not make the claim that his proof to himself that he exists is a proof to others that he exists at the same time. That claim is not part of his claim. ''Descartes started with the assumption that something besides him existed (thinking and thoughts).'' No. This was not an assumption. Descartes experienced his thinking. His thoughts were not himself. Therefore your claim is wrong, because you need him to have made an assumption, whereas he did not make an assumption. ''In saying "I think therefore I am" he presupposed his own existence '' I don`t follow this reasoning of yours. He thought; he knew he was thinking; he did not presuppose his own existence; he knew something was thinking those thoughts, which could only be himself. I just don`t see any reason in this argument of yours. ''It does however, presuppose the existence of ego.'' If you must. But I say it proves that he exists, because it was him who does the thinking. To use the word ''ego'' is not acceptable to some, because of the many colloquial and other, more specialized specific meanings it can assume. 'Ego' as a word is not of a specific meaning as you use it. He, Descartes, the thinker of those thoughts, existed, is the right way to put it. If you say it's his ego that existed, you mean by ego: - the weak, vain, vulnerable and azzolish quality of his mind? - the strong, self-assured, likable part of his mind? - the part of the mind that balances the demands of the superego against the demand of the id as per Freud's theory? To me it was not ego, in any of the above meanings. It was something that is the part or the entirety of Descartes' existence which does thinking. Beyond this, there is nothing else we can claim about the thing that exists when looked at from Descartes' point of view. What exists for sure in Descartes' proof is an experiential truth, only as viewed by the individual Descartes, and it is undisputed because it is true both empirically and in an a priori way, that he exists, and by saying 'he' he and we mean an entity that does the part of thinking. Bringing anything else into this is not part of the proof of Descartes, and it is not part of the claim he made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OKay, Jeanniebeans, can you please tell me if do I look like anybody, other than a grossly overweight tennis ball, wearing a dark shirt and a dark mind? What I need to do a picture is a name. Has anyone ever told you that you look like someone? Also, you don't have enough good pictures of yourself in your profile. At age 18: Silvester Stallone. At age 20: Al Pacino. At age 24: Fred Flintstone. At age 40: The Pillsbury Doughboy. At age 50: The Michelin Man. At age 58 (yesterday): An overweight tennis ball wearing a dark shirt and a dark mind. I`ll post some pics on my profile to the effect, but I will take them off soon after that, too. Have some patience, please. I`ll send you a note here on Mingle mail when I loaded the pictures up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What did ya wanna be.....
|
|
I was offered a position as 'giggolo' when I was at college. I wanted to jump on the opportunity (I even went for an initial photo shoot to have me put in an album for the clients to peruse), especially because at that time the main body of the clients, the larges number of them, were high class cougars. A dream come true, rrrr, heaven on earth. At the time I was slim, muscular, my body composition was 40% male hormones, 60% testosterone, and 90% semen. But then somebody mentioned how much money I could make with that, and that killed the whole idea for me. It made it into a job, a paid job, and that was enough to turn me completely off the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What did ya wanna be.....
|
|
As I was growing up as a child, I wanted to be many things, one after another. An astronaut, a writer, a teacher, a peasant (coz I heard that the country`s population and young were leaving the villages to go into big cities, and I wanted to save Hungary from starvation), I wanted to be an astronomist, a mathematician.
Then later, in highschool, when I started to work at summer jobs, I made it my life`s calling to never have to work at all ever. I even swore to perpetual poverty just as long as I needed not to do go to work every day, doing the same blasted thing every day, for eight hours a day, and wasting my life that way. It is true that society, and also I, personally, couldn`t have survived without some work performed, but I just wouldn`t hear of me being part of that process. I really hated and loathed working. When I needed to work, I got sick psychologically. Work and I don`t agree. If I were alone in the world, and I had nobody else to rely on on whose work I could feed and clothe myself, then I would probably die before I would do the work of fetching food and stuff for myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makes me wonder if preferences are also somewhat geographic? I saw this bad movie once, with one good line in it. The daughter of the President`s 15-year-old daughter is kidnapped by some Hezzbolha rebels, taken to Syria. They don`t know who she really is. They are just honest, hard-working white slave trade workers. She is incognito coz she died her hair red and curled it the day before the kidnapping. The movie goes on and on, and at one point somebody says to the hero, 'you know, Stephen, I really would like to have a blonde woman.' Stephen replies, 'the whole world wants a blonde woman.' So much for regional preferences. --------- I used to go out to dances with a Jewish guy, he was really Jewish. He was torn between the holy sanctity of Jewish Hassidic life, and the free and unbridled adulteration of the goyim singles' world. He told me he had gone to this house party of Jews. These were young people, unmarried, but in marriable age, all not Hassidic, but wearing the Yarmilka anyway. They all had glasses, curly short dark hair, and either big, or crumply noses. There were a large number of Rivkas and Rufkes there too, he went on, who were all bespectacled, dumpy, not too exciting. He told me then that by mistake or by some divine osmosis a blonde woman showed up, from some nordic country. The guys went for her in unison, they each wanted to please her, they each vied for her attention. There was the room and it looked like this after a while: A few packets of small groups of Jewish single women with dark hair, and a huge conglomeration of a hub of Jewish single men, all surrounding the blonde. The blonde said, at one point, 'Drat, I did not bring any cigarettes with me.' The guys almost went into a fistfight who should bring her some smokes, because they all wanted to. Three different guys went out, and came back in no time with her favourite brand. It was winter and Arthur, my friend, said they had their coke-bottle bottom glasses all fogged up, and their faces crumpled in a teeth-gnashing grin, it was so cold out. The blonde woman then lit up a smoke, and this was at a time when smoking was not banned, but in relgious Jewish circles it was frowned upon as an excess. Religious Jews are like Babtists and other strict Christian faiths that try to deny earthly pleasures of the flock, calling them sinful. Except in Judaism sexuality is more of a source of pscyhological damages in the young and pubescent than among Christians. So the lesson was... there was one blonde, amongst a sea of near-Hassidic Jews, and the Jewish guys forgot their religion, their race, their identity, because they, for the first time in their lives, probably, were in the same room with a sexually mature blonde grown-up woman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 11/03/12 05:45 PM
|
|
Help me understand that mentality? If you are a "big" woman and are excluding men that are overweight how can you even say that without being in shape yourself?? I prefer thick woman myself but don't close my mind to all sizes.. what do you think? Almost everything in life is about preference. I am a big woman and I won't go out with a man who IMO is too big in the same way, I won't go out with a guy who is (again IMO) too slim. Goldilocks wanted it just right and so do I Some men will chose not to go out with me because of the colour of my skin, my weight, the fact that I have children, live in the UK...the list is endless. Don't get caught up on the small stuff. It's really disheartening for a man to hear a woman say, "I don't get caught up onthe small stuff" when you are standing stark naked right in front of her. But that's just me. Been meaning to tell you for some time but this has me finally saying it...wux, you are one of the funniest guys on here, always love your posts. Thanks for the smiles and giggles. As for mis matched types, ever heard of BMW? Big Maine Woman. Lots of them and as far as I have noticed many, many BMW's are happily paired with tall slender guys who seem content as puppies. On the other hand, my bony self hasn't been noticed that I have noticed in the 3 years I have lived here. Makes me wonder if preferences are also somewhat geographic? You`re right. I seen some 'Murder She Wrote' episodes, and what you say is well documented in that series. It is clear to the viewer of that series that Maine women also dislike wealth, pretentiousness, good spelling, and they like the old aging ex-B movie actor look in men. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About the Mayan calendar... many state it`s accurate.
As compared to what. A watch made in the twentieth century is on a 24-hour day. A watch made in the 7th century BC, in Mainland China, is on a 13-hour day. Which is accurate, and which is false? Same with the so very accurate Mayan calendar. It says that in 2342 days, the world will be 2342 days older. And lo and behold, 2342 days later we are really not 2667 days ahead or behind it, we are exactly 2342 days after. Which means that one day follows the next. To say that the Inkas made an accurate calendar is to say that they counted the days after a certain day, and they wrote down the number of each day after that, in consecutive order, and NEVER MISSED A DAY, that is, the numbers are truly consecutive, and not missing a day or duplicating it. Just like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... 2340, 2341, 2342. They did not make a mistake like ... 345, 345, 347, 371, 372 373, ... And we call the calendar accurate, therefore, because the calendar accounts for each day of some start date to December whatever. Nobody even knows what day in December, because originally it was supposed to be May, but the Inkan Calednarians would rather eat Liebfraumilch choclates than admit to failure, so they pushed the target date out to ''Dezember sometime'', and thereby destroying any evidence of the accuracy part. ''Sometime'' in a given month is not accurate, I am sorry. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
