Random Thoughts
- Thread starter GrahamLewis
- Start date
Haha. Yeah, dumb shit probably accounts for a piece of that.
Curious minds want to know!
I think it depends on the person, to be honest. I have enough common sense to know that tasers are designed to hurt, and I have no intention of shocking myself. 
I always thought one of the differences between men and women is that men don't stop and ask for directions, but again, of course, that's a stereotype (albeit one that's often, but not always, true).
I always thought one of the differences between men and women is that men don't stop and ask for directions, but again, of course, that's a stereotype (albeit one that's often, but not always, true).
Made easier today by more liberal divorce laws?
The list at the link seemed like pretty generic advice, but it assumed women stay home.
To be honest, more women probably did stay home in 1913 than they do today. It's not that they wanted to, but they simply didn't have as many opportunities as they do now. (Remember, 1913 was at least 8-10 years before the suffragist movement finally succeeded in granting women the vote).
I know I'm generalising here, but to be more specific: upper-class women in 1913 probably had more opportunities to leave the house, if only to visit friends and/or the doctor. They were, however, more restricted by societal expectations of how "a lady should behave". The housework was done for them by servants.
Lower-class women in 1913, OTOH, had no such opportunities. They might leave the house to go to the market, but since they had less money, they couldn't afford as many servants, and therefore had to do more of the housework.
Somewhere in between is the middle class, i.e. those who could afford to pay for more servants, and strived to the life of the upper-classes, but couldn't afford to. It's difficult to know how much freedom women there had, but probably not much more than women in lower-class houses. They were probably free to go dancing with their husbands when a special dance was being held, but not much more than that.
Unwed women, of course, were a completely different kettle of fish (and no, of course I'm not being literal here). They were constantly watched and chaperoned everywhere. A young, unmarried woman in a middle- or upper-class household didn't have anywhere near the same freedoms as she does today. She was not free to, for instance, dance with just any man she fancied. There were rules and codes that are absent today.
(And yes, I know I'm probably preaching to the choir again.
But history is one of my specialties, as I'm sure you know!)
I know I'm generalising here, but to be more specific: upper-class women in 1913 probably had more opportunities to leave the house, if only to visit friends and/or the doctor. They were, however, more restricted by societal expectations of how "a lady should behave". The housework was done for them by servants.
Lower-class women in 1913, OTOH, had no such opportunities. They might leave the house to go to the market, but since they had less money, they couldn't afford as many servants, and therefore had to do more of the housework.
Somewhere in between is the middle class, i.e. those who could afford to pay for more servants, and strived to the life of the upper-classes, but couldn't afford to. It's difficult to know how much freedom women there had, but probably not much more than women in lower-class houses. They were probably free to go dancing with their husbands when a special dance was being held, but not much more than that.
Unwed women, of course, were a completely different kettle of fish (and no, of course I'm not being literal here).
They were constantly watched and chaperoned everywhere. A young, unmarried woman in a middle- or upper-class household didn't have anywhere near the same freedoms as she does today. She was not free to, for instance, dance with just any man she fancied. There were rules and codes that are absent today.(And yes, I know I'm probably preaching to the choir again.
But history is one of my specialties, as I'm sure you know!)
Is oxygen a hallucinogen? You stop breathing it in, and everything goes away.
That's an off-beat question. A hallucinogen, according to Google Define(TM), is "...a class of psychoactive drugs that can produce altered states of consciousness characterized by major alterations in thought, mood, and perception as well as other changes."
In other words, it's a substance that makes us see things that are not really there, or see a reality that doesn't exist.
So rhetorically speaking, if oxygen is a hallucinogen, does that mean that this reality doesn't exist, and there's a different reality somewhere else? Some people would argue that the answer is yes, and that it's called "life after death" or "afterlife". I guess it depends on what you believe.
In other words, it's a substance that makes us see things that are not really there, or see a reality that doesn't exist.
So rhetorically speaking, if oxygen is a hallucinogen, does that mean that this reality doesn't exist, and there's a different reality somewhere else? Some people would argue that the answer is yes, and that it's called "life after death" or "afterlife". I guess it depends on what you believe.
Well, does it? Think outside of the box.
Not sure how this follows.
No? Observe.
If we rhetorically accept that oxygen is a type of hallucinogen, then it follows that someone is using it as a recreational drug. (Someone will always use hallucinogens for this purpose).
But since oxygen is vital for humanity to exist in this reality, then -- following the theoretical model of multiple universes and multiple realities, and knowing as we do that all humans breathe oxygen in this reality -- it follows that there must be an alternate reality somewhere else, where humans (or at least an alternative sentient lifeform) uses oxygen as the aforementioned recreational drug.
This is, of course, assuming that multiple realities actually exist. There are many famous examples, the most famous possibly being "suppose that there was a world somewhere where Hitler's parents don't give birth to him" etc.
I'm not so sure that multiple realities exist. The one we have is complicated enough, thank you.
Besides, in some other reality, the other me might have got married and had children ... and didn't even bother to send me (i.e. the current me, the one typing this) an invitation to my wedding. What a bastard I was! You'd think I would remember to invite me to my own wedding, wouldn't you?
Well, no. All brains "take" oxygen. The hallucination is their reality.
Dear lord, I go away for fifteen minutes and come back to find people questioning oxygen.
I live at a relatively high altitude- one mile above sea level. Mountain climbers who strive for significantly greater heights regularly experience high altitude psychosis and hallucinations, which is due at least in part to low oxygen levels. So perhaps oxygen is only hallucinogenic when administered in small amounts?
Nope, the first draft isn't complete, but it is far enough along that I am allowing myself to sneak back in here for a few minutes. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.
I live at a relatively high altitude- one mile above sea level. Mountain climbers who strive for significantly greater heights regularly experience high altitude psychosis and hallucinations, which is due at least in part to low oxygen levels. So perhaps oxygen is only hallucinogenic when administered in small amounts?
Nope, the first draft isn't complete, but it is far enough along that I am allowing myself to sneak back in here for a few minutes. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.
Good to hear from you. Now go back to work.
I'm going. I'm going. Quit pushing me, Graham.
Yeah, quit fuckin' up.
I know I shouldn't laugh, but I can't stop giggling at this.
Fair enough. Not enough oxygen can cause hallucinations, but too much of it (especially if taken too fast) can also be dangerous.
If you take in more oxygen than your body needs, it can slow your breathing and heart rate to dangerous levels. Too much oxygen can lead to oxygen toxicity or oxygen poisoning.
Similar threads
