[ SECRET POST #6425 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6425 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[Disney's Mulan]



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 09 secrets from Secret Submission Post #918.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If we haven't found them by now, I'm going to say they don't exist.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Honestly this is probably true. All the centuries of people looking for a real, working aphrodisiac/love potion type thing and we've got a whole of nothing? Probably not happening/doesn't exist. OR what would work on each individual has to be so specific and tailored to them somehow that it's not worth regarding as "general pheromones" in the first place

[(Anonymous)]

All those centuries of people trying to build a flying machine, and we still haven't done it yet? Must be that it isn't possible.

[(Anonymous)]

...are you a time traveler from before airplanes?

[(Anonymous)]

Lmao no, I'm making a point. The fact that it's taken centuries to do something doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

Making a machine we didn't had the resources to build vs something that we very much have the technology to find but didn't, aren't good comparisons.

[(Anonymous)]

You're assuming that our current level of technology is good enough to find them. But we run into a lot of trouble when it comes to identifying and understanding the chemicals produced by our bodies, and the effects that those chemicals have on us. And the fact is that we've found chemicals that we think may be pheromones, we just can't say we absolutely certainty that they are. And, again, we also know that we have organs in our noses that are only found in animals that can sense pheromones. Perhaps they're vestigial, but we don't know.

Regardless, the reason the comparison works is because when it comes to invention or discovery, there's no set timeline. You cannot say that something cannot be done or does not exist solely because it's taken a long time to do or find it.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a smart, informed comment, anon, and you should feel good. IDK if the anon(s) you're talking to will appreciate it, but I do. Have a good night. :)

[(Anonymous)]

"Probably not happening/doesn't exist. OR what would work on each individual has to be so specific and tailored to them somehow that it's not worth regarding as "general pheromones" in the first place"

I bolded the part which is more likely true that you missed, I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

Doesn't really change the point.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think this is making the point you think it's making, though. The original comment says that pheromones as OP describes them probably don't exist... OR that scents and biochemical markers may exist that cause or spark attraction (there's already interesting research into this and what attracts people to what scents or what people carry what chemicals in their immune system) but likely have to be tailored to people as opposed to secret OP's idea of a universal 'woman' pheromone that attracts (straight) men.

Flying machines happened, but not in the way the ancient people imagined them; pheromones may exist, but not in the way OP and most people imagine they do or work; how does this example not only support the original point?

[(Anonymous)]

Because central to OP's point is the idea that the length of time it takes to discover something is itself evidence of whether or not it exists. And that's simply not true.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see anything like that in the secret?

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, I messed up. I was referring to the anon at the top of the thread, not to the maker of the secret.

[(Anonymous)]

Even if they did exist, I hope they are never discovered.

The implications of love potion esque pheromone are kind disturbing when one thinks about it. Such a thing could easily weaponized...

[(Anonymous)]

Think of all the things we've discovered only within the past 100 years or so, after 10,000 years of human civilization. Consider that many in the mid to late 1800s thought we'd discovered everything physics had to offer. Consider the "end of history" narrative from just 30 years ago!

The fact that we haven't found something yet doesn't necessarily mean that it's not there. It feels like we're at the pinnacle of knowledge and technology partially because humans have a tendency to think that we're better, smarter, more advanced than those who came before us; and partially because we have genuinely seen an incredible amount of advancement in the recent past. But the fact that we've seen that advancement doesn't mean we've figured everything out, or that there aren't phenomena we simply don't have the tech or know-how to identify or measure.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

I’ve had a medical condition for almost 50 years that currently half a billion other people have. It was just “discovered” in 2009.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

There's a difference between actually looking for something and not finding it, and not thinking something exists.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

The existence of the Higgs boson was proposed in 1964. It took almost 50 years of conscious looking in order to find it. Let's imagine that, as of today, it still had not been found, because the LHC at CERN was not yet calibrated correctly. Would that mean that it doesn't exist?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

It took almost 50 years because they knew they didn't have the technology necessary to actually see it and it took them that long to develop that technology. We have had the technology, and even just the experimental procedure, to find out if humans emit/sense pheromones. The tests have been done. They're either negative or so small as to be useless.

These scenarios are completely different.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

You’re really naive if you think we’ve discovered everything we’ve looked for.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Say you know nothing about science without telling me you know nothing about science. It's very easy to conduct a test to see if humans emit or smell pheromones. All the tests have come back negative or had such a small sample size that the margin of error rendered them useless. That's pretty definitive in this case.