+7Everybody has issues with their self
esteem
+6You know it's time to force quit when
the rainbow spinning wheel of doom shows
up on...
+6It annoys you when people call famous
actors, who've played dozens of roles,
by the...
+6It's said that we can't relive the past.
But in a way, that's all we do. Amirite?
+5Train like an animal, play like a beast
+4It's all about perspective. Amirite?
+6If you put a bumper sticker on your car saying, "Everything I needed to know about...
+4You'd listen to an artist/band named
Ceiling solely to be a ceiling fan,
amirite?
+4It's not bad to be in an environmental career and still like sports cars amirite?
+4Women probably would have been just as
terrible and oppressive as men had our
species'...
+6If you put a bumper sticker on your car saying, "Everything I needed to know about...
+3We all have particular pet peeves when
it comes to grammar and punctuation.
For...
+4You'd listen to an artist/band named
Ceiling solely to be a ceiling fan,
amirite?
+28When we were very young, time was
endless and we couldn't wait to be
older. Once we...
+6All game and movie trailers should be
first given to Tobuscus for his
approval, amirite?
+4It's all about perspective. Amirite?
+23It's sick that we can't even trust what
we're eating and drinking anymore,
amirite?
+11You always wonder how people film at the
perfect times to get there fails,
amirite?
+3You always wonder why people are filming
all the fials there are on the internet,
amirite?
Amirite is the premier opinion-based social network where people from all around the world discover, debate and discuss today's hottest issues. Share your perspective to the world and interact with like-minded individuals on breaking news, hot topics and controversial issues now!
With that many angles, the discussions on Amirite will open your eyes to a panoramic view of your world that you won't get anywhere else, allowing you to see the big picture and discuss it.
Every opinion matters on Amirite.
Email Address
thatguys
Android App
Your favorite part of the Bible is when God gave Earth free will and then flooded it for not doing what he wanted
1853 Comments +77 / 72%
atheismseemsmorelogialontheinterwebslulz
-213 Reply
Guns aren't going anywhere. There is no reason to let emotions run wild and ban firearms. Israel has had no school shooting since it adopted a policy that arms teachers on school grounds almost 40 years ago. Thailand has had school shootings drop drastically since they employed the same policy eight years ago. Kennesaw, Georgia hasn't had a single homicide in 25 years since requiring every household to own a firearm. We need MORE guns in the hands of responsible citizens.
15167 Comments -8 / 50%
Have you ever read State of Fear?
+231 Reply
In response to “Have you ever read State of Fear?”
I love that book. Urban heating effect: global warming nearly debunked.
022 Reply
It's not that anti-male sexism doesn't exist, it's that misogyny is worse, so it should be dealt with first, amirite?
162 Comments +66 / 80%
While I did say the first part, I don't think I thoroughly explained my second point. If the two actions are equal, then disregard what I'm about to say in clarification. In addition to being more prevalent, the actions against women and the actions against men are often unequal to the disadvantage of the women, though this is certainly not always the case. This is why I think that saying "worse" is more appropriate for this post than "abundant" because there are other factors which "abundant" doesn't cover, while "worse" does.
+44 Reply
In response to “While I did say the first part, I don't think...”
Hm, imo, I would have still said abundant.
I do see what you're saying though, that there are far harsher acts of misogyny than there are misandry which leads to it being a worse problem.
In that context, the problem is worse, due to it being more prevalent and the cases more severe than the cases of misandry, but the post straight up said that misogyny was worse and not the public problem thereof.
However, OP cleared it up in a comment in this thread, and he actually was referring to equal acts, but more abundant ones, so it's all good and I agree
+11 Reply
It's not that anti-male sexism doesn't exist, it's that misogyny is worse, so it should be dealt with first, amirite?
162 Comments +66 / 80%
Okay to clear everything up: Misogyny and misandry are both equally despicable, but misogyny is more widespread, and usually appears more severe in places where it is present. Misogyny and misandry taken to the same degree are equal, but more often than not, misogyny takes worse forms than misandry does.
+77 Reply
In response to “Okay to clear everything up: Misogyny and...”
Thanks, I agree now.
0 Reply
It's not that anti-male sexism doesn't exist, it's that misogyny is worse, so it should be dealt with first, amirite?
162 Comments +66 / 80%
I don't know for sure since I didn't create this post, but I think OP meant that, overall, misogyny is worse. That sounds obvious, but think about everything that covers. "Worse" in this situation, I believe, refers not only to abundance, but also in severity. I don't think that stopping misogyny is more important than misandry, but misogyny is a bigger issue. Hopefully that makes sense.
+55 Reply
In response to “I don't know for sure since I didn't create...”
If you're only saying that it's more severe due to it being more prevalent, then I agree.
If you're saying it's more severe because an action in misogyny compared to an equal action in misandry is more important, I do not agree.
If it's the first one, then (as a repeat of my comment above) I think that the phrase "misogyny is more abundant" should be used instead of "worse".
-33 Reply
It's not that anti-male sexism doesn't exist, it's that misogyny is worse, so it should be dealt with first, amirite?
162 Comments +66 / 80%
"but if the tumour in the spinal column is bigger than the one in the brain"
+22 Reply
In response to “"but if the tumour in the spinal column is...”
"1. Misogyny is more widespread."
"If you just meant #1, then I would agree. Your metaphor is perfect and both facts are actually true..."
Did you even read my comment?
-22 Reply
It's not that anti-male sexism doesn't exist, it's that misogyny is worse, so it should be dealt with first, amirite?
162 Comments +66 / 80%
Look higher in the page. Or, I'll copy and past e my comment here.
Both are equally bad, but misogyny is both more widespread and is taken to a greater degree in most places. It's like a tumour in the brain and a tumour in the spinal column are both equally bad, but if the tumour in the spinal column is bigger than the one in the brain, it deserves more urgent action.
+55 Reply
In response to “Look higher in the page. Or, I'll copy and...”
Ok, so you claim 2 things.
1. Misogyny is more widespread.
2. Misogyny is taken to a greater degree.
However, your metaphor that you used only reflects upon #1.
What exactly do you mean that it is "taken to a greater degree"? Do you think that misogyny is more severe?
More important?
If you just meant #1, then I would agree. Your metaphor is perfect and both facts are actually true, but in that case you should have just said that "misogyny is more abundant" instead of "worse".
But if you actually meant more than #1, then please develop more on #2.
-99 Reply
It's not that anti-male sexism doesn't exist, it's that misogyny is worse, so it should be dealt with first, amirite?
162 Comments +66 / 80%
So misogyny, the hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, is worse than misandry, the hatred, dislike, or mistrust of men?
So it's "worse" to hate a woman than it is to hate a man? Why? Do you not realize the blatant double standard? That one is not as bad as the other??
-99 Reply
You hate it when you draw your weapon, but you run out of the color you need, amirite?
248 Comments +106 / 85%
With Hullabaloo's clever wit out of the picture the slack needs to be picked up. I'm personally sick of all these posts that are either trying to hard to be deep and poetic, are arguing for two sides therefore are hard to disagree with, things that are down right obvious and posts about the site. I AM GONNA MAKE ORIGINAL JOKES AND I HOPE THEY WILL BE ENJOYED!
But thank you Len
+171922 Reply
In response to “With Hullabaloo's clever wit out of the...”
this^
...I love you
022 Reply
You never actually got "The Talk" from your parents.
134 Comments +469 / 86%
Pyromanic519Life
They are censoring words
+1919 Reply
In response to “They are censoring words”
Thank God david explained that, I was confused as well...
+22 Reply
From a physics point of view, sound (noise) is mechanical energy. It is physically real. A source of sound can (will) make the sound whether we are there to hear it or not. Or whether we can hear it or not. Therefore if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, it will still make a sound.
25 Comments +21 / 76%
AnonymousLife
Whether or not you can hear the "bloops" or "clops" doesn't matter. They are still happening. And why would the fact that the aliens weren't there make "bloops" nonexistent?
That's like saying that if someone who speaks only Spanish sees a pencil and thinks of it as a lapiz, then it doesn't exist as a pencil.
Whatever the name of this theoretical thing is doesn't matter.. it would still be there whether someone thinks of it as a bloop, clop, or sound.
Also, if we weren't able to hear, then no, we wouldn't call sound "sound," but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't exist either.
When you say that you can feel that there's no sound around you when you hear something loud, notice the word feel. There is still sound around you. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean that it's not there.
And if you think that someone has to hear it for it to be sound, then just read B10ckH34d's comment. I actually probably didn't need to write all this... He basically said everything.
0 Reply
marashmallow
In response to “Whether or not you can hear the...”
Ok queue me being a butthole!!!
Please don't take this the wrong way though...
I'm a physics major at Texas A&M and just went through advanced oscillations. I learned everything about them from light waves to kinetic waves to sound waves and so forth.
I've talked to leading experts on harmonics that have written dissertations about the subject and I have been taught by those people as well. They taught me what I've been saying.
In the same way that an atheist can argue with a Christian over the internet about evolution when the Christian refuses to listen regardless of countless amounts of scientific proof backing him up...
... it is a waste of my time to argue with a 14 year old about something that I already know is fact even though no one on this post is going to listen to proofs and knowledge and will just downvote all my comments because they don't agree.
End me being a butthole.
Otherwise, you're hella smart, I love your thought process and hope I can debate with you sometime in the future!
+11 Reply
From a physics point of view, sound (noise) is mechanical energy. It is physically real. A source of sound can (will) make the sound whether we are there to hear it or not. Or whether we can hear it or not. Therefore if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, it will still make a sound.
25 Comments +21 / 76%
AnonymousPhilosophy
Whether or not you can hear the "bloops" or "clops" doesn't matter. They are still happening. And why would the fact that the aliens weren't there make "bloops" nonexistent?
That's like saying that if someone who speaks only Spanish sees a pencil and thinks of it as a lapiz, then it doesn't exist as a pencil.
Whatever the name of this theoretical thing is doesn't matter.. it would still be there whether someone thinks of it as a bloop, clop, or sound.
Also, if we weren't able to hear, then no, we wouldn't call sound "sound," but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't exist either.
When you say that you can feel that there's no sound around you when you hear something loud, notice the word feel. There is still sound around you. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean that it's not there.
And if you think that someone has to hear it for it to be sound, then just read B10ckH34d's comment. I actually probably didn't need to write all this... He basically said everything.
0 Reply
marashmallow
In response to “Whether or not you can hear the...”
Hm, I see what you're saying, but here's what I'm also seeing...
In my scenarios, no one can observe something except a specific few. These specific few can't explain to the majority what they cannot observe.
In your scenarios, and everyone else's, everyone can observe something except a specific few. These specific few can be explained in different ways what they are unable to observe, but they are unable to be explained how exactly the majority can observe it.
It's the difference between one deaf man in the world is able to accept the understanding of mechanical waves and knowing that everyone else around him can hear "sound"
And on the other hand you have a world where people aren't made to hear, but one man was born with the ability. No one would accept the idea that sound exists because it's just this man observing it and he can't really prove that "sound" exists since everyone else is deaf.
You need that observation in order to call it sound
Without that observation, without hearing, there is no sound.
No observation, no sound.
+11 Reply
From a physics point of view, sound (noise) is mechanical energy. It is physically real. A source of sound can (will) make the sound whether we are there to hear it or not. Or whether we can hear it or not. Therefore if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, it will still make a sound.
25 Comments +21 / 76%
AnonymousPhilosophy
(thatguys): In your last paragraph, you said that if you're not observing them, they're still there. That is the opposite of everything you just said.
011 Reply
Anonymous
In response to “(thatguys): In your last paragraph, you said...”
You're using too many pronouns.
When I said they were still there, it means the mechanical waves are still there. However, you hear no sound. There isn't any sound there when you're deaf. Trust me, ask anyone who is deaf...they hear no sound.
However that doesn't mean the mechanical waves aren't there.
0 Reply
From a physics point of view, sound (noise) is mechanical energy. It is physically real. A source of sound can (will) make the sound whether we are there to hear it or not. Or whether we can hear it or not. Therefore if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, it will still make a sound.
25 Comments +21 / 76%
AnonymousPhilosophy
So if no one's there, the vibrations don't make any noise, but if someone hears it, they're suddenly making sound? The vibrations are the sounds, and they are created whether or not someone is listening.
I guess it all just goes down to your definition of sound--whether it's the vibrations in the air that you hear, or if there's a step in the middle where the vibrations are turned into sounds and then you hear them.
+341 Reply
marashmallow
In response to “So if no one's there, the vibrations don't...”
cont.
Same thing with sound. If humans were not made with the ability to hear, we wouldn't call sound "sound". There would be no such thing as noise; they would just be mechanical waves in the air.
You need the human there to actually call it sound.
Just like you need a human there to call the presence of enough photons "sight"
Just like you need a human there to call an object with high molecular energy "hot
Just like you need a human there to call loose molecules in the air a "smell"
Sound is not a mechanical wave in the air. A mechanical wave in the air is just a mechanical wave in the air.
Sound is when a human observes that mechanical wave through hearing. That's why you can feel that there's no sound around you when you're deafened by something loud, even though there's waves in the air all around you. It's just because you're not observing them!
-213 Reply
From a physics point of view, sound (noise) is mechanical energy. It is physically real. A source of sound can (will) make the sound whether we are there to hear it or not. Or whether we can hear it or not. Therefore if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, it will still make a sound.
25 Comments +21 / 76%
AnonymousPhilosophy
So if no one's there, the vibrations don't make any noise, but if someone hears it, they're suddenly making sound? The vibrations are the sounds, and they are created whether or not someone is listening.
I guess it all just goes down to your definition of sound--whether it's the vibrations in the air that you hear, or if there's a step in the middle where the vibrations are turned into sounds and then you hear them.
+341 Reply
marashmallow
In response to “So if no one's there, the vibrations don't...”
cont.
Now, let's say that if we didn't meet the aliens and they didn't exist, we were still able to somehow detect this signal coming off of a heated object. We've been able to detect things we can't sense before, like magnetic and electric waves, so eventually we'd be able to observe these.
Let's name the signals themselves clops, just to make another random name. We can measure clops through some sort of machine we make in the future, but the aliens never existed that are able to actually detect them. Instead, we only can detect them through machinery.
If there are only clops, there are no bloops. Bloops are the result of an alien observing clops. Without those aliens, no sentient being, meaning no one, can observe clops in the way that they can.
Since no one can experience bloops (because someone who can experience bloops doesn't exist) then bloops don't exist at all. There would be no one in the universe who can prove they exist. You need someone around to actually experience it in order to call it a bloop. Until then, they're just clops coming off of heated objects and we need technology to measure them.
cont.
011 Reply
From a physics point of view, sound (noise) is mechanical energy. It is physically real. A source of sound can (will) make the sound whether we are there to hear it or not. Or whether we can hear it or not. Therefore if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, it will still make a sound.
25 Comments +21 / 76%
AnonymousPhilosophy
So if no one's there, the vibrations don't make any noise, but if someone hears it, they're suddenly making sound? The vibrations are the sounds, and they are created whether or not someone is listening.
I guess it all just goes down to your definition of sound--whether it's the vibrations in the air that you hear, or if there's a step in the middle where the vibrations are turned into sounds and then you hear them.
+341 Reply
marashmallow
In response to “So if no one's there, the vibrations don't...”
TheBlindMan is right.
Say there was an alien race that could see heat through a type of signal that we can't perceive. It's not light, it's not mechanical sound waves, but it's a type of signal emanating from anything holding higher amounts of heat corresponding to the quantity of heat that it holds.
Let's call these signals "bloops" just to be ridiculous. Bloops are everywhere, but we had no idea they existed before we met the alien race because we had nothing to observe them with up until we meet them (say we meet them in the year 2050). This race gives us a pair of glasses that allow us to see the bloops by converting them to light. These glasses allow us to then be able to observe them because they are converted to a sense that we actually do have.
In the year 2012, (say we're still in this scenario) do bloops exist? Yes, we just can't observe them. Actually, we never will be able to legitimately observe them: only the future aliens will be able to.
If there aren't any aliens, there's no bloops, because to us, people who cannot observe them, they don't exist. If we never would have met them, we wouldn't have known about bloops ever.
cont.
-11 Reply
Instead of telling me to turn off my lights every time I leave a room, how about we turn off the screens in Times Square, amirite?
317 Comments +86 / 88%
I said people want to save the earth, I didn't say I did. If other people think the world needs saving, I think they should sign a petition to get Times Square shut down for a while. I, now that you showed me, don't think the world is in danger. It's cool you tried to prove me wrong, though I don't really know what my point was... If it was people want the earth to be saved, well that's like saying people want god to save them. I don't believe it, but I acknowledge others do, and you totally proved them wrong
022 Reply
In response to “I said people want to save the earth, I didn't...”
Hm, I guess I put too much thought into the assumption that you agreed. Never mind, thanks!
+132 Reply
Friends who randomly start singing and dancing with you in public are awesome, amirite?
14 Comments +85 / 81%
dandybrandyPeople
How did I end up on MLIA?
-123 Reply
Instead of telling me to turn off my lights every time I leave a room, how about we turn off the screens in Times Square, amirite?
317 Comments +86 / 88%
I didn't want to reason with you because you're arguing and acting like you're better than me when I couldn't care less. I said people think the world needs to be saved because of pollution and climate changed, I didn't say I thought so. It's cool that we're not dying I guess, but frankly I didn't even bother to read all of what you said, I didn't want to deal with something I couldn't care less about. But now I responded, do you feel better? Am I less pathetic to you? Are you done?
033 Reply
In response to “I didn't want to reason with you because...”
Acting like I'm better than you, no. Acting like I am more correct than you, yes.
"I didn't even bother to read all of what you said"
Yet you downvote? I'm lost...
"I didn't want to deal with something I couldn't care less about"
You don't care about the credibility of your own post? It's ok, I can tell.
"Am I less pathetic to you?"
Not really
"Are you done?"
Am now!
+231 Reply
Instead of telling me to turn off my lights every time I leave a room, how about we turn off the screens in Times Square, amirite?
317 Comments +86 / 88%
Well a lot of people want to save the Earth and Times Square beign down for a while would make a difference I would think.
+242 Reply
In response to “Well a lot of people want to save the Earth...”
Hahaha you voted me down when I provided sources and everything! How pathetic!
022 Reply
You know America is messed up when 11% of the country is in favor of a communist takeover, and only 7% is in favor of congress, amirite?
610 Comments +118 / 88%
Source?
+11132 Reply
In response to “Source?”
Lol, the communist voted down he who asked for a source...
When Minitrue says we're at war with Eurasia, no sources are needed, just the man yelling in the middle of a street.
+33 Reply
Instead of telling me to turn off my lights every time I leave a room, how about we turn off the screens in Times Square, amirite?
317 Comments +86 / 88%
Well a lot of people want to save the Earth and Times Square beign down for a while would make a difference I would think.
+242 Reply
In response to “Well a lot of people want to save the Earth...”
Average global precipitation over the past decade:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/...mb=/ar5RVX4Of4
In case you can't tell, energy consumption has obviously gone up a lot, but nothing else has in accordance with it.
-213 Reply
Instead of telling me to turn off my lights every time I leave a room, how about we turn off the screens in Times Square, amirite?
317 Comments +86 / 88%
Well a lot of people want to save the Earth and Times Square beign down for a while would make a difference I would think.
+242 Reply
In response to “Well a lot of people want to save the Earth...”
Save the Earth? When does stopping energy use save Earth? Wait, when was the Earth in danger in the first place??
First off, wouldn't the concept of renewable energy completely throw off this post? And the entire idea that energy consumption harms the Earth?
The Earth is fine. Last time I checked the numbers, none of the predicted values of temperatures, rainfall, etc have changed drastically due to energy consumption at all.
The energy consumption over the past few decades:
http://www.treehugger.com/clean...l-warming.html
Average temperature over the past few decades:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/...bb3b51ca2f014d
-325 Reply
Instead of telling me to turn off my lights every time I leave a room, how about we turn off the screens in Times Square, amirite?
317 Comments +86 / 88%
...why? If the people who own the screens are willing to pay for that electricity, why save the energy?
-527 Reply
Food for thought: the mathematical symbol Pi is a never-ending non-repeating decimal number, which means that any number combination you can think of exists somewhere within Pi. Converted into ASCII text, somewhere in that sequence of digits is your exact name, the exact date and time of your death, and the answers to life's greatest questions. It's mind-boggling to think that all this information can be contained within one symbol, amirite?
6149 Comments +290 / 91%
I don't think that's exactly comparable. OP is saying that what's incredible is the possibility that somewhere in the sequence of pi, the numbers will be naturally ordered to spell out all this information without having to manually arrange them. Also, it's all represented by a single, mathamematically accepted symbol.
+19201 Reply
In response to “I don't think that's exactly comparable. OP is...”
That's true for any irrational number though. So any set of inifinite number that has no pattern is this. It applies to the sqrt(2), sqrt(19), the golden number, etc.
+352 Reply