Well much to everyone's disappointment and surprise, TOTSE is shutting down tomorrow - for good. Unless some kind of miracle happens. I just wanted to say good bye to this forum and its many great posters (as well as the trolls and whoever else). If I was ever a dick to any of you I apologize, and I hope we can all regroup wherever the interbet takes us.

If its any consolation, Kiko_Sanches was about to be modded. Chicken of Doom was second choice.

I wish you all the best.

Western Society has had multiculturalism thrown at it but does having multiple cultures immigrate to a country make it stronger or weaker?

Abortion is often lauded as one of the most fundamental of women's rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The concept of abortion as a woman's right, like all "women's rights" is nothing more than a victim card played by women because in today's society it is more beneficial to be an "oppressed minority" than it is a member of the social elite. In today's society people actively want to be "oppressed", because it is not true oppression; but a "get anything you want" free card.

Abortion is a human right. A man has just as much right to abort a fetus as does a woman, and woman is obligated to comply. A man's DNA is just as much his as the woman's body is hers, abortion cannot be considered an infringement of anyone's rights (aside from the fetus in late trimester) as the child is just as much man's as it is woman's.

If there is anyone stupid enough to disagree with me, please leave your opinion on this matter by clicking the "post reply" button you see at the bottom of the page where you can type your commentary as well as add any optional emotiocons (although it is not recommended) and submit the reply by clicking the "submit new post" button you see below the message field. Your reply will then be submitted and other people can read and respond to it.

I just wrote an essay regarding new developments with the laws of nature.

Since the scientific revolution headed by Newton and Galileo, philosophy has evolved from more arcane ideologies into more scientific and 'logical' ideas. This evolution of philosophy can be likened to the evolution of cavement to the men of today. These more 'scientific' ideologies have evolved from the 'idea' worlds of Plato to "measure[ing] the strength with sub atomic particles interact with one another [1]" In a sense science and philosophy are now one in the same. Today the most conventional view on how the universe operates is governed by so-called laws that permeate throughout the universe. These laws such as gravity, thermodynamics, etc were thought to be universal constants. However according to promising research, the laws of physics may not be as constant as previously believed. This study suggests that a very important universal constant known as alpha has been slowly changing over the eons and "threatens to shake up our very notions of reality" [2]" In a very Star Trek like manner, this interesting study adds some spice to the bland and boring world of universla constants and laws. If the laws of phsyics are changing over slowly over time, what does this say about our idea that the laws of nature are homogenous and constant throughout the universe? Although these ideas seem to throw your precepts of the universe out the window, these are not new ideas. Since the 1930's, physicists have been coming up with mathematical theories that suggest that the laws of physics may not be entirely concrete. These ideas have been proposed by many physicists, most notably Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum phsyics and widely regarded as one of the greatest physicists of all time.

Imagine that you are Sir Isaac Newton, sitting under an apple tree thinking about how the world operates, and as the story goes an apple falls on his head. Imagine that another apple falls but instead of doing as all apples that fall from trees do, this apple floats upwards. This seems quite absurd, but this story illustrates the idea of how eternal and unchanging the laws of physics are to us. Since the time of Newton, most respecatable scientists believed that the universe "was governed by strict natural laws that can be discovered and formalized by means of scientific observation and experiment [3]" . However one only has to look to the other so called 'constants of the universe' that have been proven to exist when the science of the day said otherwise (i.e dark matter [4]) Two years ago astrophysicists discovered that the universal cosntant alpha may have changed over time. Alpha, is a measurement of the strength in which electrons bond wihtin atoms and molecules (such as the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water) This shakes the very foundations of how we view our universe. Also, i am to understand, that Alpha is a 'dimension-less' constant which makes it more 'fundamental' than constants such as the strength of gravity, or the speed of light. This study could change the way we think the universe works. It is generally assumed that the leading view was that the universe is homogenous or completley the same in the ways the 'laws of nature' apply. This is assumed by the Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Antrophic Cosmological Principle [5]. However there are quite compelling arguments that say that the laws of nature may apply differently to different regions of the universe. Take for instance the fact that the unvierse contains several different structures such as stars, galaxies, clustes, superclusters [6]. If you were to look at an image of a small part of the observable universe you would see galaxies of different colors here and there and maybe a supercluster in a random corner. If the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe how did these structures form in such unique ways? It is a strange concept, but in light of this new study, how outlandish does it really seem? It seems a logical step to make that to assume that if the constants of the universe change with time, the cosntants of the universe cna change within different regions of the universe. Would we really be blashpheming against some infallible law of physics to hold such a belief? I think not. These so-called laws of phsyics that we think are so concrete are not s concrete as previously believed. Even now, physicists are struggling to discover a 'theory of everything' which unifies all the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong) [7]. At first it seems that this theory collides with the most widely accepted theory of the universe, the big bang theory, but that is simply not so. There is an intersting analogy that helps bring aobut sense to my seemingly dismal theory. Pretend that there is a sentient being living inside a loaf of bread that is rising, continually expanding at a uniform and constant rate. But in this loaf of bread there is obvious small structure within the bread, perhaps an air bubble is formed, perhaps a sentient species (these small structures represent areas where the laws of nature apply differently). So according to this analogy, on the large scale the universe is expanding at a uniform rate and the air bubble or raisin moves along with the expansiopn but is still operating under their own laws of physics. At this point I had to stop and think. Since my understandings of these concepts are elementary at best and since I am no astrophysicist there may be some horrible equation proving me wrong. However in the sense of conventional logic it seems logical to say that if it isnt far fetched to say tha tthe laws of nature can change over time, that it isnt far fetched to say that the laws of nature can change geographically as well.

WHen it comes to the laws of nature there are two main principles theories. The theories being: the Regularity theory and the necessitarianism theory [8] REgularists believe that the laws of nature are only statments of the uniformities or regualrities of the universe. To quote " they are mere descriptions of the way the world is". Regularists refer to the laws of the universe , to "relflect the way we speak about it". However to the necessitarians, the laws of nature are physicially necessary and the antural world obeys these laws of nature. An example used was that of the electron. An electron gives off a certain electrical charge becasue there is a law of the nature to that effect. It is the nature of the electron, by necessity to give off that charge. TO make the disctinction between the two theories more clear, here is another example, Let us say it started to rain chocolate chips. It is true that both regularists and necessistarians would agree that it is impossible. However regularits are only making the factual claim that there is no such occurance in the past or present. They are not saying there could be no such occurence. However to the necessitarians, it is a physical impossibility that violates the laws that govern the universe. Are the laws of nature a physical necessity that are infallible? Or are they merely the best way to describe the universe as we think of it today. I am more inclined to bleive that the laws of anture are not set in stone, and I think that this new study proves this idea...

Now the philosophical implications of this study are quite interesting. As I was thinking about how this could shape our notion of reality. THe first thought I had on the subject must ahve been spurred on by Star Trek, it might have even been an episode. If the laws of nature are different in various regions of the unvierse that the possiblity of there being alien life must surely increase. Since we are carbon life forms and we exist in the unvierse we can assume taht given the right conditions life forms based on carbon can exist elsewhere in the universe (where the same laws of nature exist). According to the laws of nature (in our region of space ) it is impossible for , say, an iron based life form. Only carbon can create orgnaic molecules liek proteins and such necessary for life. However if the laws of physics were different in a region elsewhere where maybe carbon doesnt form 4 bonds or 'hybridize'. Maybe in this unvierse Arsenic can sustain life. Perhaps there are arsenic or iron based life froms somehwere in the universe. It seems farfetched but it is still an interesting thought.

On a more serious note, this is an amazing discovery. And although it is true that there could be many sources of erroe and scientists could have been mistaken. I like to think the universe is more exciting than the way it is percieved now. According to conventional laws of physics, it would take 2.5 million years, travelling at the speed of ligth to reach the nearest galaxy.
Or even 20 years to get to the newly discovered earth like planet (Gliese 281) [9] TO me, that is extremely disconcerting and this new theory brings hope.

Well thats my essay, i hope u enjoyed reading and im interested to hear some feedback (mainly, at what academic level is this on) / more information on the topic . i have sources but im reluctant to post them for fear for plaigarism, but you can ask.

Why do we commit self-sabotage on ourselves? It seems to go against instinct and what our very early ancestors would do, doesn't it? By self-sabotage I mean doing something that will harm you and you know this, but you still do it. Like not studying for a test and failing, even though you want to do well in the class because you have some longterm goal related to it. Or people continuing to eat like pigs even though they are already obese, unhealthy and disgusting, and they know it. Economists say people are rational in their decisions, but not really when you think about self-sabotage.

Right now I'm committing self-sabotage in fact, as I should be using this time between classes to study something, not sit on my ass on totse. Do I get enjoyment out of sitting on totse? Well yeah, I guess, but I could've just as easily gone on it later after I have done some work.

I think we truly are our own worst enemy. If it wasn't for self-sabotage, we'd all be rockstar millionaires with beautiful women swinging from our cocks...or whatever it is you'd want. What to do? What to do...

I think if you look at history, the answer is "Probably not". Jews and Muslims have been fighting for over a thousand years. I don't really see the groups ever reconciling, and as long as they're both around, Muslims will be blowing themselves up, and Israelis will be periodically sending troops into a Muslim country to kill people.

Frankly, I think one of the groups needs to be wiped out. I hope Hamas gets obliterated from the face of the planet, and if I had to choose more broadly between Israelis and Palestinians I would definitely choose the Israelis. Plenty of groups of people have had land stolen from their ancestors, yet Palestinians are the only ones who can't seem to get over it. Even if they wipe out Hamas, there will be yet another terrorist group in a few more years.

I doubt this is practical in the least, but part of me thinks that Israel should take over as much of that land as it can, kill everyone who fights back, and then gradually re-educate the Muslims so that there are no future generations that think they should be able to terrorize Israel.

I am sitting here watching one of my favorite movies; Children of Men, and so much of this movie rings true to modern society, and I wonder what would be the point of no return for humanity. In the movie it is global infertility, but what would, in real life, be the trigger for a global breakdown?

Personally I think that oil will be our ticket to hell. Once the oil run's out, how will our consumer based western society run? Would we even be able to feed ourselves without exporting food from all over the place; all of which would require oil as a fuel. Alternative sorces may be possible, but not in the timeframe we have to work with I think. Governments are to complacent and the people don't give a shit, so why would anything be different in 15 years?

What does it mean to be hedonistic?

Is it selfishness, or does it mean doing whatever you want to please yourself (including helping others)?

Do you consider yourself hedonistic?

hedonismhedonismhedonism:mad:

I'm confused about this current middle east conflict.

If the Israelis have the means to kill the Palestinians, but the Palestinians don't have the means to kill the Israelis, doesn't that mean that the Palestinians have lost, and should surrender?

I don't see how anyone can support Hamas in its war, when they have already lost. The only thing stopping the Israelis from building malls and suburbs on the Gaza strip is some notion of human rights.

But anything you can do to a rat you can do to a human, and you can do a lot of things to a rat. In history human rights have only applied within civilisations, and when civilisations clash, human rights have ceased to apply. For instance I can't shoot my neighbour, much as I might love to, but when my country goes to war I am encouraged to shoot as many of the enemy as possible.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not a clash of nation states, but a clash of civilisations. In this situation 100% of the population of each civilisation is a target, as they contribute to the maintenance of their civilisation, thereby becoming a means of continuing the war.

We have to decide which civilisation to support in this war. For me the choice is clear, I support the more western, technologically advanced, liberal and slightly secular Israeli state. The Palestinian state is backwards, poor and extremely religious. We each need to choose a side based on rationality, rather than based on pictures of dead children shown on the nightly news.

For example:
What would German kids learn in their history classes?
"Ok kids, the second world war is a bit of a touchy issue here, so I need you to skip the next hundred pages of your textbook."
OR "So what I am saying, kids, is that the country you live in committed massive genocide."

I have been to the Hiroshima Peace Park in Japan, and while it is a moving place, the memorial museum they have there is, understandably, completely biased towards themselves. It gives the image of, "Oh we were just here, and we were nuked, and lots of us died." But does not even attempt to answer the question of WHY they were nuked. Would the Japanese youth be aware of their ancestors war crimes?

Who said this famous saying?

I am 95% sure it was spoken by a French monarch however I couldn't find any info in google...

Thanks in advance.

Here are a couple of things i would want to do.
1) Teach the people of the third world about not urinating in public places.:)
2) I would be happy if i can change people's mindset on Racism, hatred of fellow men ...

When I think of the world around me this is what I picture.



I sympathize with the Earth and value it more than man, what a beautiful place. Humans are nothing more than a cancerous growth, why must these useless fucking cunts continue to procreate? There is a limited number of resources on this planet, yet humans continue to procreate. Worldwide the economy is in shambles, yet humans continue to procreate. Humans continue to procreate with the ambition that their little darling cancers will grow up to be something special. They will not. Humans are so selfish and narcissistic, that they feel they need to create a copy of their worthless ass selves. Some of them even procreate out of their own stupidity, it's not often that a bitch will "discover" she's pregnant five months after conception.

The problem with humanity is that they always wait until the last moment to admit that they have a problem. Just like in the USA, with the current economic crisis, how long did it take for them to admit we're in a recession? How long did it take for them to admit we're in a depression? Months. Democracy is detrimental to humanity, checks and balances are just wasted time. I guarantee you given the do-gooder, selfish, self-nourishing ways of man it will be too late when he comes to realize that there is an overpopulation problem. Every time I hear about a war or a famine, or a genocide, I am given hope that not all is lost. I'm given hope that there may be a more positive future ahead.

Individual life has no value anymore, it seems everyone is procreating at an ever increasing rate. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is ultimately a very positive thing for humanity. This shit between Israel and Hamas is ultimately going to be a good thing. The genocide in Darfur is wonderful. Is there anyone dumb enough to disagree with me? If so, feel free to express what's on your feeble ass mind.

I believe that the whole concept of the nation-state is outdated. If you measure the extent of a government's power through how many decisions it can make for you, then the end-result of educated and morally-objective populations would be no government at all. Every Utopian ideal that involves a coercive government is inherently wrong(communism, fascism, socialism, totalitarianism, whatever) for a simple reason. That reason being that if you believe humans are capable of organizing themselves into a perfect society, then nobody would need to be forced to do anything.

When you debate abortion, gun laws, gay marriage, anti-discrimination, and you choose the morally-objective, correct, libertarian route of complete rights so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others, you see that at the root of all those "debates" is the amount of education/common-sense/intelligence of the people.

Being that no government today functions without force/violence, government is the complete anti-thesis to freedom, not the protector/defender of freedom. Governments may exist, but they should be completely voluntary, including taxes. You join a government by choice, you should get a suggestion sheet telling you what percentage of your income would make a reasonable contribution to charities. No IRS agents with guns should ever be allowed to steal money from your paycheck. Violence is only acceptable in self-defense, be it from wolves, bears, or a person of an unsound mind infringing on your freedom.

Governments keep defying all expectations and oppressing people because of the gray area we axiomatically assign to them. Every elected official is a human, morals that can't be applied to everyone inherently fail, therefore if you can't initiate violence, steal money from someone else, steal property from someone else, put a gun to a doctor's head and force him to treat you for an illness, etc. then why should the government be allowed to?

Not a formal essay or anything, just tossing ideas around:

At the age of 18,19, 20, or 21, it's debatable which one, you should be given the choice to continue being a US citizen or not. I understand that you can voluntarily renounce citizenship, but it's too obscured. A reminder at your coming-of-age birthday would be an important psychological check/balance. Government is a monopoly on force and it should be opened to competition against all lifestyles. Naturally, selective service should end as well. If the government operates satisfactorily, it should be able to continue running off of volunteer power.

When a previous law that influences cultural values reaches a satisfactory level, the law should expire.

Example:
Racial discrimination laws should be ended. The vast majority of entities would remain non-discriminant. The law is unnecessary redundancy. The outliers shouldn't be subjected to men with guns enforcing it. The loss of revenue via public awareness of their practices should be the only consequence they should face.

Symbolism is very important, and people need to be reminded that in most cases, it is NOT the government that maintains societal order.