Rahll

no problem, I reread my original post and realized I came off soundng mad that you were wrong. I didnt mean it that way. I'm taking math classes in college and am determined to put it to some what of an use But yea, you do have better chance of getting pregnet using a condom, the pill, and spermicide than winning the lotto, on the other hand that chance is still very very small. The moral of my posts.....Don't waste money buying lotto tickets and have sex instead

Yes, read my earlier posts, or google it

thegost, your suggestion is fine for the normal everday achne that everyone gets, but some people (including me) have it a lot worse, and even if we were to wash our face every hour, we will still get it. Fatty foods have nothing to do with it, thats a myth. The only way fatty foods can cuase achne is if the greese from the food gets on your face and you dont wash it off. As for the accutane, you only use it until you stop having achne problems, for most thats around the age of 22. You have to take it every day, even if you dont ahve breakouts, and when you stop, you will get a large case of breakout, but then it returns to normal. I stoped using it when I was 20, and now have very little problem. I still use some over the counter stuff every day tho.

June4life -- Even if you use all known contraceptive messures, (aside from abstinence) there would still be some chance. Pill =99.3% or 7in1000 chance or .007 Condom =98% or 20 in 1000 chance or .02 Spermicie =75% or 250 in 1000 chance. or .25 So with the pill the percentage of getting pregent is .7%. We now reduce that .7% by 98% from the condom which =.00014 or 14 in 10,000 chance. We then reduce that number by 75% from the spermicide, which equals .000035 or 35 in 1,000,000 chance. 35 in 1,000,000 reduces to a 1 in 28,574 chance. So using the pill + spermicide + a condom gives you a 1 in 28,500 chance of getting pregnent. FYI, the odds of winning your multi-state lotto (called powerball in colorado) are 1 in 120,526,770 for the top payout. As for the spermicide condom, use any kind of water based lube. KY is the best choice, and is usually eaisly obtainable. ALthough, the spermicide on the condom acts as lubrecation on it's own, so you may not even need the KY, but its best to have it on hand just in case.

Hehe, valid points. And I'm pretty much agreeing with you. As for free will, yes we have free will because we can only choose one action, alls I'm saying is that that action is not truly unknown. It is and foever will be unknown to us, but because there is nothing truly random, there can be no such thing as true free will. As for the math principal. First, there is proof that A=A. The law of idenity is the foundation of ALL of our current math concepts, and while I don't fully understand the proof or it myself, I know that it exists, and that it is accepted as a mathmatical law, and not just a mathmatic principal. The key thing there is that "We can't make laws that the universe will follow" and to that I agree. WE never will be 100% certian that a law existsm, or that it is absolute. However, there are still absolute laws that the universe has to follow, we just will never fully known them, as it would require the knowledge of everything, which is impossible. But even tho we will never be able to make a law with absolute certinity, theys till exist. If there was no true absolute for the universe, then there would be no order whatsoever, and no principals, no matter, no life. The univserse has to follow it's own rules, or it woudlnt be a universe.

First, for a mathmatic principal. A always equals A. It's the first law of mathmatics. You are correct is stating that when you subsititue A for a value, then they will never be equal. This is because, the number system is infiniate, and because of that, there is infiniate percision in any calculation. thereforeeee 1=1 is not an absolute truth, because 1 could be 1, or it could be 1.0000000000001. or it oculd be 1.(infiniate 0's1). However, this is not what the Law of Idenity is stating. The law states that A = it's self. When you compare A to itsself, even tho you cant mathmatacaly that A is identical to another A, you can say that A is infinitaly identical to it's self. As the core definitation of identical is that there are no possible changes. This extended and trancends the infinite realm. So whereas the percision to which A is eqal to its self can never be trule known, we can still know that A will always always be equal to A. This is the core of modern mathmatics, and is an accpeted LAW (not principal) by all. Aristotle applied the same concept to philosphy. With "A" being absolute truth, and our perception being the way to messure that truth. What you say about electrial impulses is true. Our perception is based on electiral impulses which are based on stimuli and biloigy. Because they are based on something else, nothing will ever be truly ture for us. But this doesnt mean that absolute truth doesnt exist. As with the law of idenity, we can come infinitaly close (1.000000000infinity1) to perceiving absolute turth (A) but we will never be able to fully do so. However, just because we cant do the exact infinite percision of A (absolute truth) doesnt mean that absolute truth (a) doesnt exist. nor does it mean that absolute turth cant be compared to it's self. So how does this apply to the cosmos? That is in your next question. Yes you are correct, but this does not mean that anything can happen at any time. Even though there are an infinite amount of varibles in the universe (for the universe is in it's sefl infinite) these varibles still have to follow the absolute truths of the universe. Since we can never fully comprehend these absolute truths, we can never fully compregend every possible outcome, thus for our perception an infinite number of things could happen at any time, but to the universe, the out come is known, because the universe is based on absolute prinicpals. finally, tieing this in to free will. Just as we cant fully perceive all the varibles of the universe, we cant compregend every single possible outcome for an action, thus we have the perception of free will. However, to the universe, every single possible action, varible and outcome exists, and thereforeee there is no true or absolute free will.

parisian_pink Not to be rude, but your numbers are off. Either you havent kept up with the latest information since high school, or you wernt really sure. Intresting for someone who works with planned parrenthood. link removed The pill, including the patch is only 99.3% effictive, and that is with PERFECT use, which happens to less than 25% of people who use it. 99.3 and 99.7 might not seem like a huge difference, but that's an extra four children per thousnad people. Apply that to the population of people using the pill in the US, and thats quite a few more kids. A condom ALONE is 98% effective with PERFECT use. Again, perfect use occurs in less than 25% of people. A condom + spermicide is 99.7% accurate. Condom = 98% or 2in100 chance. Spermicide = 75% or 15in100 chance. Take the 2% from the condom, and furthur reduce it by 85% or 2*.15 and you get .3 or 99.7% So a condom + spermicide is more effective than the pill. And a condom alone is only 1.3% less effictive than the pill Again, not trying to flame or get mad, just correcting your numbers.

Hah! That argument applies to all of philosphy. Philosphy is important because it changes the way you act, and discussing it (at least for most) is one of the best ways of reinforcing it.

Yea, you brought up the insticnt argument. Our "instincts" also tell us that being attracted to the same sex is gross. Most guys are turned off by seing two guys having sex. Why? Because for our bodies, having sex is a means to reproduce and carry on the species, and two guys or two girls having sex does not produce offspring. Does that mean that being gay or lesbian is wrong? Some people believe it is, but society is slowly starting to accept it, we are slowly learning that we can change our instincts, and that they don''t rule us. As for your genitic diversity argument, you used the wrong terms. " Mating with a close relative increases the chances of a disease causing recessive gene to be expressed and causes the offspring to die more easily." 1. Disease doen't cause an increased chance of their being a recesive gene. 2. The increased chance is only present in direct realtionships, either parent, child, or brother, sister. 3. For this increase to make even the slightest bit of difference, there would have to be at least five generations of offspring consived from two close realitivies. The human race is diversifed enough that any child born from a family realtionship would have a very very increased chance of receiving a recessive gene, or a recessive genitic disorder. If you know how, run a simple halfing probality study, shouldnt take more than ten minutes. Assume that a given trait A. has two variants, A1 and A2, and two types mA and fA. With A1 being recessive, and A2 being dommint. Now multiply thoes together, giving the following rules. A1 * A1 = A1, A1*A2 = A2, and A2*A2=A2. Each time the equation is rerun, assume that the decline is exactaly one half. After running this scenario, you will eaisly see that it will take a minium of five generations to even change the likely hood of receiving an A1 or double resessive by even .2%. Comebine this with the fact that, the recline rate in a real case would be much less than 1/2 because of genetic diversity. Finally, as for the comment about having sex with my mother. No I would not, but my reasons are valid, and my arguments sound. If I had grown up in the right environment, and had open minded parents, then it would be a possibility. My point is, that I'm not repulsed by the idea of having sex with my mother simply because it's gross.

Just A Teen, if you truly believe that, than could you please support your views? Give us some reason, or something other that, its wrong, gross and messed up. I understand your only fourteen. But if you think your old enough to have views, then you should be old enough to be able to express them in a more detailed way.

It's ture that your records are confidential, but with a family doctor, I'd be carful. Most doctors are great, and will respect your choices even if you dont agree with them. But I've known and had a familty doctor who has accedentaily betrtayed my trust before. I remember when I was sixteen, and had a routine physical. I had blood work done and requested that the results be mailed directaly to me and not discussed with anyone. The doctor assured me that that would be fine. However, a few days later, my mom told me that the doctor and left a message on the awnsering machine saying that my blood work shows positive (turned out to be a false positive) for hepatitus. The doctor had left a message, on a family awnsering maching, one on which the recording clearly wanst me (my mom recorded the greeting) and instead of asking that I call him back, he said that he would want me to come in for a test to confirm that I didnt have hepatitus. As a result of this message, my parrents got freaked out, all kinds of questions started coming my way, as to how I could possibly have gotton it, and everyone got worried (except for me). A few days later, it was confirmed that it was nothign, but the whole thing could have been preveneted if the family doctor just followed my instructions to not discuss any results with anyone but me.

Argument!!! Yay, Thank you....... As for free will. I think we are both actually agreeing. It's that our definitations of free will are diferent. If I understand you corectly, you determine free will being that we have a choices, and that as long as we dont know what thoes choices will be, we have free will, because we can choose to act a certian way as oppsed to a different way. On this, I completely agree...... However, my definitation of free will, is a lot more broad, one that encompses everything. I think of free will as not only a philosphyical principal, but also as a law. And that is, that there is no truly random element in the universe. Or more specifically, Everything is the universe is dependent on something else in the universe, in some way. This is one of the principals of the realtivity theory. Everything in the universe is realitive to somethign else. Folowing this logically, then another law is that if every variable and principal was known about the universe, than everything could be predicted with 100% certinaity. This furtur expands to say that since everything is dependent on something else, that if one were able to travel backwards in time, and were able to observe and record the past, without chaning any of the universal constants, then thigns would happen exactaly as they did before. This is acutally impossible, any action changes the universe. It's for this reason that free will does exist, but for me, in the grand scheme of things it is only a perception. Free will is realitive to everything, and thus isnt truly free. As far as absolute truth. This is a debate that has been raised ever since the earliest of times. The debate is between the abosolute truth, also known as the Law of Idenity, and the uncertintany principal. These rules/principals cover both science and philosphy. The Law of Idenity was first purposed by Aristotle ver 2000 years ago and states simply, that A=A. A=A, such a simple statement with such amazing reflections. A=A REGARLESS of weather someone or something can prove it or not. What exists, exists, weather or not it is perceived. We will never be able to truly perceive what something is, because perception is only achieved through experiance and knowledge. Where as absolute truth is achived through a true constant. There are laws that are always "so", fundemental truths that can never be changed. Without them, there would be no universe, no nothing, and no nothing to percieve them. When I speak of perception, I speak of it outside of the human context, rather perception is a philisophical princiapl for determinging what something is. However, something doesnt ahve to be perceived for it to be true. By saying there are no true laws, no true fundemental principals, you are saying that there is nothign beyond perception. If this is true, then nothign truly exists until it is perceived. The age old addage of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". This is what the uncertinty principal is all about. If you believe in absolute truth, then you believe that the tree does make a sound becuase, even tho you have no way of proving it, (there is no one there to actually hear it), the tree makes a sound anyways. Whereas if you dont believe in absolute turth, then the tree does not make a sound, because nothing exists until it is perceived. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I cannot grow in my views, nor will they change unless others question them.

lol yep, I had that problem when I was younger. It's worse than pee tho, it's more like a mixture of pee, lint, bo, and semen all mixed together. Lol, hope I didnt gross anytone out, but you definitally have to wash your penis off at least once a day. You dont even need to use soap, just sticking it under the shower works great. In adition to the smell, if you dont wash it theres a greater chance of getting an infection.

It's not chemical, or it's not likely. As obsession of this kind is rarly brought upon by biology. Sometimes biology can cause another form of mental illness that would cuase this, but depression isnt it. The anti-depressents lower your feelings of obsession because anti-depresents are designed to lower emotional response in general. They make you less depressed, not by makeing you feel more happy, but by reducing all of your emotional reponses, the strongest of which is, at the time, depression. Again, you need to force yourself to start dating, even if you dont feel like it. Either that or start really talking to a thearapist.

rofl, ok now that one even confuses me, and I wrote it. The "S" key isnt even close to the "K" key, it's not even the same finger. That was supposed to be "Guys dont try to kiss stright guys" Ok, as usual, playing devil's adviociate, did you find any strightl porn on his computer? or does he have any stright DVD's? If he does then his explanation is certinally plassuable. But if he only has gay porn, then him saying that he only has gay porn at best means that he never really tried stright porn in a long time, or at worst, means he flat out lied to you and have never liked stirght porn. Finally, of course at some point in everyone's life do they question their sexuality to soem degree. It would be unhealthy if they didnt (guy or girl)My point is that questioning in "normal" people is done during adolescense/teens, is usually done in private, and usually leads to a fairly definitate conclusion. The fact that this guy is well into his twenties, and is still questioning his sexuality, either suggests denal (meaning he really is gay) or sexual abuse issues (meaning he isnt yet sure). Again, this is not everyone, but is the likely outcome.