Doesn't an aphrodisiac work by altering brain chemistry to increase libido? In that sense, it doesn't matter where you spray it, and spraying in on your genitals is awkward/pointless since it's not going to do anything extra that spraying it in your mouth and ingesting it wouldn't do. This guy is selling snake oil.
Also: Some psychoactive substances such as alcohol, cannabis, methaqualone, GHB and MDMA can increase libido and sexual desire. However these drugs are not aphrodisiacs in the strict sense of the definition, as they do not consistently produce aphrodisiac effects as their main action and often actually impair function.
Emphasis mine. |
|
|
|
|
Doesn't an aphrodisiac work by altering brain chemistry to increase libido? In that sense, it doesn't matter where you spray it, and spraying in on your genitals is awkward/pointless since it's not going to do anything extra that spraying it in your mouth and ingesting it wouldn't do. This guy is selling snake oil.
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with your assessment that being a jerk causes more problems than not being a jerk, but given the freedom to be a jerk, some people are going to be a jerk. I take the line that it'd be great if everyone acted with kindness and empathy towards everyone else, but some people are just awful people, and it's their right to be awful so as long as they don't physically harm another person or their property.
I must say that your tolerance of my "being a jerk" was pretty good (although you couldn't help yourself in calling me a *jerk* which is in itself a *tell* that I did actually upset you). So your peace preaching is not really backed up by your post content which is actually attacking me.  I think you read it wrong mate. I'm not calling you a jerk, and am in fact agreeing with your point. (I think?) If your point in saying that: ...the simple point is that I can just say "you are a fucking cunt" and if seemingly I have some sort of "voice" (perhaps due to being a Legendary Member) then now we have a problem which if I didn't say such a thing wouldn't be the case would it. was to say that you are causing a problem by being hostile that wasn't there before, then I am in agreement with you. It seems you are making a hypothetical point here with your "hostility." I expounded upon that point to say that, hypothetically, some people will act like jerks because they are free to do so. Since I thought you were being hypothetical, you were not the jerk I was referring to; I was referring to people who would insult other people just to insult them. If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for. I did not think you were, however. If you do want to be a jerk though, you're perfectly free to do it. It's unnecessary, but my point is being a jerk isn't illegal, nor should it be. It's actually not until you stated that you thought I called you a jerk that I thought the intention of your post could have been anything but non-hostile. |
|
|
|
But even if this were true- that they were intentionally trying to insult- I've yet to see a compelling argument for making insulting speech illegal.
Of course it would make little sense to me that even hateful comments should be "illegal" - the simple point is that I can just say "you are a fucking cunt" and if seemingly I have some sort of "voice" (perhaps due to being a Legendary Member) then now we have a problem which if I didn't say such a thing wouldn't be the case would it. Of course to make it a bit more hurtful I should do it like this: You are a fucking cunt!
I don't disagree with your assessment that being a jerk causes more problems than not being a jerk, but given the freedom to be a jerk, some people are going to be a jerk. I take the line that it'd be great if everyone acted with kindness and empathy towards everyone else, but some people are just awful people, and it's their right to be awful so as long as they don't physically harm another person or their property. |
|
|
|
Personally I think it is odd that people think that it is "so important that we should (or should not) be allowed to insult each other" to the point that they think we should start wars over it.
The freedom of speech thing is a black and white issue. Either you have it, or you don't. If you don't, then you have all the gray area over what is acceptable to say and what isn't. But the people on the freedom of speech side, from my perspective, are not trying to start wars. Perhaps, if you were to take the worst view of them, they are intentionally trying to insult, rather than just doubling down on their freedom of expression in the face of those who would silence them with violence. But even if this were true- that they were intentionally trying to insult- I've yet to see a compelling argument for making insulting speech illegal. |
|
|
|
At least the church is being consistent? Also, it seems the "freedom of expression" France has become such a big fan of recently has limitations as well: French comedian to be tried after Charlie Hebdo gagFreedom of expression! ( ...as long as it's approved of expression.) |
|
|
|
You've heard of project loon from google and other similar project from facebook: free internet for the whole globe via flying drones or balloons. Those are US companies. Now would you need to give up your (wherever you live) rights to the US government so you could be monitored online for your own good because you will be using a US utility service?
How adorable you think you're not already being monitored! And you realize they're talking about local (city) networks, not some ISP run by the federal government, right? Because in your haste to make another anti- 0b4m4 post, your representation of what is happening and what is actually happening are not the same. Aren't r3publ1c4ns about local authority? Cuz you're actually arguing against local authority. The laws in question that have been enacted at the state level restrict the rights of people at an even more local level (city government) to band together and create their own network. How droll!0b4m4 Zero x b x 4 x m x 4 = Zero. Yep. That sums him perfectly  You can freely go back in time and scan all my posts regarding the lack of freedom (total monitoring of the internet, security). I am not a C3PObl1c4ns. Some people believe, maybe you, that everything needs to be heavily centralized for progress to flourish. Only a few chosen intellectuals should allow the mass to be creative, under strict supervision. That is the vision of that failed equation, also called 0b4m4. Nothing should be done without a heavy dose of a big gov magic dust. I do not. Decentralization and a bubbling of super creative minds is what push people forward. It is the same phenomenon that pushes Nature forward and adapt. 0b4m4 is by definition an evolution dead end. Zero. On a personal level I think the dude looks charming and he is maybe a great dad. I am not a big fan of his socialistic egocentric narcissistic narrow minded vision, that is all...  That's a great response to nothing I said. Let me simplify it for you so you don't get distracted by all the deprecating leet-speak. You're advocating for laws that restrict freedom by opposing the president on this one. That's quite contrary to conservative values, so you're selling out your self-proclaimed identity and values just to oppose the president. |
|
|
|
If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs. They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them. And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too?  Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp? By showing the cover of Charlie Hebdo they do? I thought we were all Charlie now. Not you? On which side are you then? Yeah, nothing sticks it to those Muslims harder than reprinting the covers they find so outrageous. I'm on the anti neo-conservative side. |
|
|
|
If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs. They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them. And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too? Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp? |
|
|
|
You've heard of project loon from google and other similar project from facebook: free internet for the whole globe via flying drones or balloons. Those are US companies. Now would you need to give up your (wherever you live) rights to the US government so you could be monitored online for your own good because you will be using a US utility service?
How adorable you think you're not already being monitored! And you realize they're talking about local (city) networks, not some ISP run by the federal government, right? Because in your haste to make another anti- 0b4m4 post, your representation of what is happening and what is actually happening are not the same. Aren't r3publ1c4ns about local authority? Cuz you're actually arguing against local authority. The laws in question that have been enacted at the state level restrict the rights of people at an even more local level (city government) to band together and create their own network. How droll! |
|
|
|
This is utterly dumb. Cameron would have to ban all encrypted channels, such as https, encrypted passwords logins etc...
Completely unworkable in "Digital Britain".
*facepalm*
This is what I was thinking. It's impossible to 'ban' them, what he's saying sounds like he just wants to criminalize or penalize their use just because they can't snoop on you. Wouldn't it be possible to ban them though? The apps have to be downloaded, so for either iOS or Android, if you pass a law that outlaws encrypted mediums, Apple and Google can no longer offer them for download in their stores in Britain. Now you've eliminated the product from 99% of the people who don't know how or don't care to go to the trouble of trying to obtain the apps in any other way. |
|
|
|
I believe in animal rights but I also believe in the right to eat whatever the fuck I want.
Those things seem mutually exclusive to me. If animals have rights, it would seem to me that you cannot kill and eat them. It can still be illegal to be cruel to animals without going so far as to say they have "rights." Animals have rights. They have the right to be eaten by the man or woman that owns them. They have the right to be fed to the kids. They have the right to be sold and resold to other people. It's kinda like the rights that bitcoins have. They have the right to be used by their owners as money. But government tries to regulate Bitcoin, just like they try to regulate the chickens and other animals. Wake up and see that when something is regulated, even if it is a "rights group" of some kind that is promoting the regulation, it is NOT the item or commodity or money that is being regulated. Really it is the people who are being regulated. When people are regulated involuntarily, it is slavery, it is involuntary servitude, it is against the laws of nature and the common law, even though it may be what seems to be a legal code. Stop getting in my face with your regulation! What you're describing for animals aren't rights. What you're describing for bitcoins aren't rights either, because inanimate objects don't have rights. Also, I am a meat eater. I was not advocating for animal rights, I was pointing out the logical inconsistency of animals having rights but also still being killed and eaten, just like I was pointing out that the things you're saying don't make sense; you're not describing animals' rights, you're describing man's rights over animals. |
|
|
|
If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs. They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them. |
|
|
|
I believe in animal rights but I also believe in the right to eat whatever the fuck I want.
Those things seem mutually exclusive to me. If animals have rights, it would seem to me that you cannot kill and eat them. It can still be illegal to be cruel to animals without going so far as to say they have "rights." |
|
|
|
5. “Anders Breivik”
If Anders Breivik had never existed the left would have had to invent him. He is the (allegedly) right-wing bogeyman they can wheel out at every turn – as Vince Cable did on BBC Question Time – to ‘prove’ that modern terrorism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. The correct response when they try to play this game is: “OK. Apart from Anders Breivik, name two more. Even one more….”
1. Timothy McVeigh 2. Ted Kaczynski I know the fiction that modern terrorism is an exclusively Islamic phenomenon is a security blanket for neo-cons that justifies their racism against another group of non-whites, but it is still a fiction. |
|
|
|
Doesn't bother me none, these lowlifes have been a plague for many years now. I don't exactly sympathize with their targets but these guys just annoy the crap out of me.
Aren't their targets more often than not military funerals? |
|
|
|
Snapchat and WhatsApp could be banned in Britain for refusing to give British intelligence services access to their encrypted databases. Mr. Cameron, who has started to campaign ahead of a national election in Britain in May, said his government, if elected, would ban encrypted online communication tools that could potentially be used by terrorists if the country’s intelligence agencies were not given increased access. The reforms are part of new legislation that would force telecom operators and Internet services providers to store more data on people’s online activities, including social network messages.
T-t-t-terrorists abound, and Big Brother is the only one who can save you! Quick, give me all your freedoms for safekeeping! “Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read?” Mr. Cameron said at an event on Monday, in reference to services like WhatsApp, Snapchat and other encrypted online applications. “My answer to that question is: ‘No, we must not.’ ”
Read more: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/british-prime-minister-suggests-banning-some-online-messaging-apps/?_r=0 |
|
|
|
I am new here and you people need to wake up to the evil around you. Except to hear a lot from me. The government narrative of what went down in France was bullshit. Here is all of the proof that you need. http://youtu.be/kdN1EbkzIUMhttp://youtu.be/JOhsvDKN0rcWestern governments, through their mass hysteria media lapdogs, are spoon feeding you toxic pablum mush to dumb you down. Ronin, you need to open your own eyes to what's really at play here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ |
|
|
|
Make gas cheap enough and fewer will want to spend the extra $10-30k to get a hybrid or full-electric.
That might well be a net positive. Energy prices are only partly fungible. Electric power through a coal power plant might well cost more to run a car than gasoline, if gasoline were cheap. And from the chimeric "co2 pollution" viewport, coal has two carbon atoms for every one in gas, doesn't it? CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter where it comes from. But I think you're wondering if running an electric car fueled by coal-generated electricity ultimately releases more carbon into the atmosphere than a car which runs on petrol. I can't find any information to reliably answer this, but I live in an area fueled by nuclear energy, so I've never had to personally give it much thought. And I'll be switching to solar as soon as one of the solar generation companies like Solar City expands to my area. (I also drive a hybrid, and it was $4,000 extra dollars compared to the non-hybrid version of my car, which is nowhere near $10-30k extra. It's also paid for itself, and although it would take longer in a time of always-low gas prices, it would still pay for it's own upgrade before I bought a new car.) On the other point: In order for a gas car to be cheaper to fuel than an electric, gas has a long way to drop. Tesla's Model S gets 89 mpg equivalent. 1 gallon of gas is the equivalent of 33.7 KwH, which means that a Model S gets 89 miles per 33.7 KwH. At an average US electricity price of 9.84 cents per KwH, 33.7 KwH costs $3.32, which is how much it costs to move you 89 miles, for a per mile price of 3.7 cents per mile. As of 2013, the average mpg of the American fleet was 24.6, but I'm going to assume you have a newer, fuel efficient car and say you're getting 30 mpg. At an average price of $2/gallon, 1 mile would cost 6.7 cents. And in order for your 30 mpg vehicle to be cheaper to run per mile than the Model S, gas would have to dip below $1.11 per gallon. (Electricity is more expensive in the northeast and California, so in California for example where electricity is 13.5 cents per KwH, gas would have to be less than $1.53 per gallon to be cheaper to run). |
|
|
|
All you need is one guy standing guard with guns at the gate.
The terrorists will back out right at the planning stage.
If they're devout in their belief that dying a "martyr" is their duty, the threat of death is not a deterrent, so I wouldn't say this is accurate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
