Come to Canada we have poutine 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Food and “stollen” are an odd mix since so many cultures in history have so many dishes in common either through diffusion and interaction or concurrent invention.
Fun fact on pizza though- nah. Not really. Americans brought pizza to Italy.
Whaaat?! Well- ok, sort of. Here we go.
When Italians came to America two things to mention.
1. They couldn’t get exactly the same things as in Italy always.
2. Many things that were very expensive in Italy or couldn’t be had were cheap and abundant here.
So Italian Americans started making dishes that diverged from traditional Italian food.
Spaghetti and meat balls, pizza as Americans and much of the world know it, etc.
Americans went to Italy in the war (and other times of course but that’s a big one) and wanted the Italian food they knew and loved. America was big in Europe around WW2 and popular believe it or not. Cool. So many also wanted to adopt the American style of things.
▼
Fun fact on pizza though- nah. Not really. Americans brought pizza to Italy.
Whaaat?! Well- ok, sort of. Here we go.
When Italians came to America two things to mention.
1. They couldn’t get exactly the same things as in Italy always.
2. Many things that were very expensive in Italy or couldn’t be had were cheap and abundant here.
So Italian Americans started making dishes that diverged from traditional Italian food.
Spaghetti and meat balls, pizza as Americans and much of the world know it, etc.
Americans went to Italy in the war (and other times of course but that’s a big one) and wanted the Italian food they knew and loved. America was big in Europe around WW2 and popular believe it or not. Cool. So many also wanted to adopt the American style of things.
society 1 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
I mean… That’s actually… dictionaries do remove words when people stop using them commonly. They add and remove words or change spellings and definitions based on usage. Go look at an English dictionary from each of the last 2-3 centuries and see if you can notice a few differences.
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
But here’s the kicker- nuclear weapons do exist so it doesn’t matter if we are “better” or “worse” for that. They are here.
Many say “we can disarm” and to that I say- you’re a moron. A sweet moron, but a moron.
Nuclear weapons were far from the most destructive force in WW2, far from the greatest killer, and far from the most depraved, disgusting, cruel, soul staining ways men killed and hurt other men in that war or since.
So… disarm? Because they kill people? Because they are horrific? They are powerful. Guns kill people. Tanks, bombs, flame throwers, gas…. Do you think the worlds militaries will stop using guns if one of them says they’re throwing them all away for “more humane” or less prolific killing tools? War is often won by those with advantage and the ability to exploit it. For all the proliferation treaties from mines to gas, tonnage of ships and treatment of combatants or non combatants etc
All are selectively followed and routinely broken if it gives advantage
Many say “we can disarm” and to that I say- you’re a moron. A sweet moron, but a moron.
Nuclear weapons were far from the most destructive force in WW2, far from the greatest killer, and far from the most depraved, disgusting, cruel, soul staining ways men killed and hurt other men in that war or since.
So… disarm? Because they kill people? Because they are horrific? They are powerful. Guns kill people. Tanks, bombs, flame throwers, gas…. Do you think the worlds militaries will stop using guns if one of them says they’re throwing them all away for “more humane” or less prolific killing tools? War is often won by those with advantage and the ability to exploit it. For all the proliferation treaties from mines to gas, tonnage of ships and treatment of combatants or non combatants etc
All are selectively followed and routinely broken if it gives advantage
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So it gets complicated but at the end of the day, without nuclear weapons the world might have less death or more peace or it might just be harder for one person to decide to destroy the world, or… maybe nuclear weapons have kept the best peace or fewest deaths from conflict that we could hope for in the modern age. Maybe it’s somewhere in the middle and as the disclaimer “developed nations” hints at- maybe we just passed all the death and killing to nations without nuclear capability or close nuclear powered friends.
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Why didn’t we use more nukes? Why not against enemies who didn’t have them or what about before other powers developed them? Early in they were scarce and to this day they remain a bit precious to use for any old mission requiring explosions.
It is also the case that the globe including America was shocked and appalled and traumatized the more we found out about the effects of these weapons on humans and our world.
Even military leaders generally don’t relish in causing people suffering and have to grapple with moral and ethical issues and consequences.
But that alone isn’t enough, look at the use of Napalm and general conduct in conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan. People were seeing these things on the ground but once they started showing up in time magazine, the war ended shortly after.
It is also the case that the globe including America was shocked and appalled and traumatized the more we found out about the effects of these weapons on humans and our world.
Even military leaders generally don’t relish in causing people suffering and have to grapple with moral and ethical issues and consequences.
But that alone isn’t enough, look at the use of Napalm and general conduct in conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan. People were seeing these things on the ground but once they started showing up in time magazine, the war ended shortly after.
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
To the opposite, nuclear weapons just make it easier and less costly to kill others.
That was the primary US justification for the only use of nuclear weapons in combat in history.
A couple planes or a single unmanned missile can release the devastation of an entire air group running multiple missions.
You can kill thousands or millions across the globe and never place a single one of your soldiers in danger to do it.
So we could make a hypothetical argument that nuclear weapons could make war and killing even more common.
That was the primary US justification for the only use of nuclear weapons in combat in history.
A couple planes or a single unmanned missile can release the devastation of an entire air group running multiple missions.
You can kill thousands or millions across the globe and never place a single one of your soldiers in danger to do it.
So we could make a hypothetical argument that nuclear weapons could make war and killing even more common.
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Well, it’s all hypothetical. War itself is a deterrent to war.
When war happens people die, things are destroyed, social and economic systems get disrupted and uprooted and… lord of people suffer. If you take nuclear weapons out of the equation, Russia and America still through much of the 20th century could easily have leveled major cities and such. The fire bombings in Japan were arguably as or more destructive than the nuclear bombs.
Much of Europe was leveled and rebuilt after the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively quickly back up and running effectively and maintained large populations. Nuclear weapons have Strat/tac advantages but as far as devastation goes they don’t do a whole lot that conventional war of marge mechanized forces cannot.
When war happens people die, things are destroyed, social and economic systems get disrupted and uprooted and… lord of people suffer. If you take nuclear weapons out of the equation, Russia and America still through much of the 20th century could easily have leveled major cities and such. The fire bombings in Japan were arguably as or more destructive than the nuclear bombs.
Much of Europe was leveled and rebuilt after the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively quickly back up and running effectively and maintained large populations. Nuclear weapons have Strat/tac advantages but as far as devastation goes they don’t do a whole lot that conventional war of marge mechanized forces cannot.
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
We can draw the conclusion that it is highly likely that direct clashes between developed post atomic age nations would have had staggering death tolls- the USA vs. USSR in direct combat for example.
That said it becomes a what if game.
If there were no nuclear weapons would a post war Russia have tried to invade Western Europe without their nuclear shield?
But… would america or Russia have taken the same trajectory post war if they didn’t have nuclear weapons? Would global politics have unfolded as they did had the world not watched america unleash the most terribly awesome weapon of the 20th century? The US and USSR for example still had massive populations and production capabilities, the US navy and Airforces were and are gigantic and formidable. So it isn’t like these nuclear nations weren’t imposing or a threat without nuclear weapons but….
That said it becomes a what if game.
If there were no nuclear weapons would a post war Russia have tried to invade Western Europe without their nuclear shield?
But… would america or Russia have taken the same trajectory post war if they didn’t have nuclear weapons? Would global politics have unfolded as they did had the world not watched america unleash the most terribly awesome weapon of the 20th century? The US and USSR for example still had massive populations and production capabilities, the US navy and Airforces were and are gigantic and formidable. So it isn’t like these nuclear nations weren’t imposing or a threat without nuclear weapons but….
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
.. of nuclear escalation.
Nuclear weapons also didn’t stop developed nations from getting involved in costly and destructive wars and military actions like Vietnam, US/USSR wars in Afghanistan, French or American involvement in Vietnam, the Korean War, any number of conflicts in Africa and South America, The invasion of Ukraine, at least twice, and several other regional conflicts. Kosovo, Somalia etc etc.
Now it gets tricky as how do we compare all those deaths from the start of the atomic age to WW2? WW2 didn’t last half a century, so all that death happened in a condensed span comparatively. But WW2 was a global spanning open and total conflict which many individual conflicts and actions get balled into to create the total death toll- and in part that death toll relies upon the atmosphere of global politics at the time and other factors.
Nuclear weapons also didn’t stop developed nations from getting involved in costly and destructive wars and military actions like Vietnam, US/USSR wars in Afghanistan, French or American involvement in Vietnam, the Korean War, any number of conflicts in Africa and South America, The invasion of Ukraine, at least twice, and several other regional conflicts. Kosovo, Somalia etc etc.
Now it gets tricky as how do we compare all those deaths from the start of the atomic age to WW2? WW2 didn’t last half a century, so all that death happened in a condensed span comparatively. But WW2 was a global spanning open and total conflict which many individual conflicts and actions get balled into to create the total death toll- and in part that death toll relies upon the atmosphere of global politics at the time and other factors.
Nukes save far more lives than they take 8 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
It’s not really a sound argument for two reasons.
1. You are speculating at the lives saved. We cannot know for sure.
2. You are including lives speculatively saved because of an intangible- the wars that did not happen, but in your deaths caused by nuclear weapons you do not factor in the lives lost because of lack of war between developed nations.
The proliferation of proxy wars where nuclear powers instigate or create war between non nuclear powers was largely due to nuclear weapons.
When we look at proxy wars or at wars which couldn’t be effectively prevented due to involvement of nuclear states, then include things like coups, related or non related genocide, political killings and purges, invasions, annexations, etc.
the 20th centuries most prolific man on man death tolls take place independently from a specific war and were often acts of standing governments- who often had relationships with or to nuclear powers which effectively precluded external aid due to fear..
1. You are speculating at the lives saved. We cannot know for sure.
2. You are including lives speculatively saved because of an intangible- the wars that did not happen, but in your deaths caused by nuclear weapons you do not factor in the lives lost because of lack of war between developed nations.
The proliferation of proxy wars where nuclear powers instigate or create war between non nuclear powers was largely due to nuclear weapons.
When we look at proxy wars or at wars which couldn’t be effectively prevented due to involvement of nuclear states, then include things like coups, related or non related genocide, political killings and purges, invasions, annexations, etc.
the 20th centuries most prolific man on man death tolls take place independently from a specific war and were often acts of standing governments- who often had relationships with or to nuclear powers which effectively precluded external aid due to fear..
STOP CALLING IT PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY! >:( 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Yes. Gelatin(e) is also what the powder is called used to make “jelly” aka “jello” as well as other dishes. So why do we call a flavored gelatin desert aka “jelly/jello” as “gelatin”?
Easy. We call custard custard even if it often has gelatin in it, so you aren’t going to be confused if someone says gelatin desert- it is not custard.
Secondly, most other dishes made with gelatin(e) are common in the US and even if they were, they wouldn’t be served as a desert or in the same general capacity as jello by any any sane person.
Thirdly, the term gelatin desert isn’t commonly used. Most people just call it Jello and the knock off brands usually label themselves “gelatin desert” but you’d still probably call it it jello.
Easy. We call custard custard even if it often has gelatin in it, so you aren’t going to be confused if someone says gelatin desert- it is not custard.
Secondly, most other dishes made with gelatin(e) are common in the US and even if they were, they wouldn’t be served as a desert or in the same general capacity as jello by any any sane person.
Thirdly, the term gelatin desert isn’t commonly used. Most people just call it Jello and the knock off brands usually label themselves “gelatin desert” but you’d still probably call it it jello.
STOP CALLING IT PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY! >:( 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Sweet baby James. Don’t try to tell me how to speak my language when you don’t even know how to speak your language.
You do realize that British and Commonwealth English have “jelly” in the way American English uses the term yeah? Mint Jelly? Often served with Lamb? Ring any bells?
What you show on the left we call Jam- fruit Jam contains the entire fruit, if it only has the essence of the fruit, like juice etc. we call it jelly.
That way you know what you’re getting, fruit or no fruit, just by the name. Neat huh?
The thing on the right we either call “Jello” because when a specific brand gets popular enough we tend to just call all similar items by the brand name even if it isn’t another brand (or is common for us to call facial tissues “Kleenex” or cotton swabs “q-tips” for example); or we call
It “gelatin,” the same as your “gelatine” except spelled right.
You do realize that British and Commonwealth English have “jelly” in the way American English uses the term yeah? Mint Jelly? Often served with Lamb? Ring any bells?
What you show on the left we call Jam- fruit Jam contains the entire fruit, if it only has the essence of the fruit, like juice etc. we call it jelly.
That way you know what you’re getting, fruit or no fruit, just by the name. Neat huh?
The thing on the right we either call “Jello” because when a specific brand gets popular enough we tend to just call all similar items by the brand name even if it isn’t another brand (or is common for us to call facial tissues “Kleenex” or cotton swabs “q-tips” for example); or we call
It “gelatin,” the same as your “gelatine” except spelled right.
That is one tasty burger 2 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Because we’ve seen how people with free healthcare eat and just as our forefathers once said “give me Liberty or give me death,” when faced with the prospect of eating like a European serf or or some kind of ice farmer and living forever, or having ribs available as a side dish- give us the food or give us death!
All teasing asides (if you can’t stand teasing don’t tease others…)
It’s cheaper to eat badly in America in general. People who can afford access to the American healthcare system come from around the world to do so because it is one of the most advanced and quality systems in the world, if you can afford it. But most Americans who are in socioeconomic brackets to do so generally don’t eat food like you see pictured often or at all.
All teasing asides (if you can’t stand teasing don’t tease others…)
It’s cheaper to eat badly in America in general. People who can afford access to the American healthcare system come from around the world to do so because it is one of the most advanced and quality systems in the world, if you can afford it. But most Americans who are in socioeconomic brackets to do so generally don’t eat food like you see pictured often or at all.
Invade Rome 2 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
I think I’ve answered this before here? Maybe it was somewhere else.
I’d return the elephant to the wild if possible and if not put it on loan to an animal sanctuary or zoo, or rent it out which is neither giving it away or selling it.
Conversely you could barter it like to a zoo, for tickets or a cotton candy or something.
Bartering is different than selling, selling requires an exchange of money and goods/services where barter is goods/services for goods/services.
I’d return the elephant to the wild if possible and if not put it on loan to an animal sanctuary or zoo, or rent it out which is neither giving it away or selling it.
Conversely you could barter it like to a zoo, for tickets or a cotton candy or something.
Bartering is different than selling, selling requires an exchange of money and goods/services where barter is goods/services for goods/services.
SHREK>SHORT PEOPLE 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Separate comment. Odd observation. The intersection between people sensitive or advocating about issues like male height discrimination and the people bemoaning “cancel culture” and “PC” and “Snow Flakes” and “Woke” is pretty notable.
So Farquaad is a joke character that makes fun of short guys. Short guys get made fun of and sold short in society quite a bit.
But… if you don’t believe in “wokeness” or what not and think comedians should be able to speak freely and such… wouldn’t you by default think that by the same token that a trans joke is “just a joke” and people need to “lighten up” that short jokes are just jokes and short people need to lighten up?
·
Edited 1 year ago
So Farquaad is a joke character that makes fun of short guys. Short guys get made fun of and sold short in society quite a bit.
But… if you don’t believe in “wokeness” or what not and think comedians should be able to speak freely and such… wouldn’t you by default think that by the same token that a trans joke is “just a joke” and people need to “lighten up” that short jokes are just jokes and short people need to lighten up?
SHREK>SHORT PEOPLE 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
But Shrek has shown many times to the audience and other characters that he does care about other people and respect them.
Farquaad was self absorbed and superficial.
The fact he was also short is obviously a gag at the expense of short people- but him being short isn’t why he was rejected. You can be a Shrek at 5’2” as much as 7” and you can be a Farquaad at any height too. You’ll probably have better luck with people as a Farquaad at 6’+ than 5’ and under but a Shrek at any height usually has better odds of actual happiness.
Farquaad was self absorbed and superficial.
The fact he was also short is obviously a gag at the expense of short people- but him being short isn’t why he was rejected. You can be a Shrek at 5’2” as much as 7” and you can be a Farquaad at any height too. You’ll probably have better luck with people as a Farquaad at 6’+ than 5’ and under but a Shrek at any height usually has better odds of actual happiness.
SHREK>SHORT PEOPLE 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
And the forest so many can’t see through the trees? That ogre was 10x the man and better human being than the other guy.
Interestingly it’s a very Farquaad way of thinking- if a woman would choose a worse person just because he were taller- why would a good person want to be with her?
If she is that sort of person then you probably don’t like her unless you share her values.
If you still want to be with someone who has shown values that are poor to you, that is generally lust or ego.
As was the case in the film, Farquaad didn’t value, know, respect, or even care for Fiona as a person. Shrek keeps people at a distance largely because people have hurt Shrek so self preservation and self image usually tend to create defense mechanisms where people with those experiences in their formative development tend to reject people before they are rejected, turning a belittling experience into the illusion of an empowering one. They CHOOSE to be alone.
Interestingly it’s a very Farquaad way of thinking- if a woman would choose a worse person just because he were taller- why would a good person want to be with her?
If she is that sort of person then you probably don’t like her unless you share her values.
If you still want to be with someone who has shown values that are poor to you, that is generally lust or ego.
As was the case in the film, Farquaad didn’t value, know, respect, or even care for Fiona as a person. Shrek keeps people at a distance largely because people have hurt Shrek so self preservation and self image usually tend to create defense mechanisms where people with those experiences in their formative development tend to reject people before they are rejected, turning a belittling experience into the illusion of an empowering one. They CHOOSE to be alone.
It's funny coz they are 2 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
.. the stadium hasn’t covered the roof for example.
It is generally illegal to trespass on the property of a venue in order to watch an event without paying. So if the fence and/or land immediately across the fence belongs to the stadium then it COULD be illegal to watch from that spot, but generally since the areas of a venue before the ticket gates are open to the public, you’d need to be told to leave that area or the venue, or need signage etc. making clear the area was off limits, for it to be illegal. If you step into an area owned by the venue but open to the public without barriers etc. to access, you have not yet committed a crime generally. When they ask you to leave it has not become a crime. When it is made clear the owner doesn’t want you there and you disregard their wishes it generally becomes a crime unless an area is already not open to the public. Unless a fence keeps you away from the fence, the fence itself is open to the public basically.
It is generally illegal to trespass on the property of a venue in order to watch an event without paying. So if the fence and/or land immediately across the fence belongs to the stadium then it COULD be illegal to watch from that spot, but generally since the areas of a venue before the ticket gates are open to the public, you’d need to be told to leave that area or the venue, or need signage etc. making clear the area was off limits, for it to be illegal. If you step into an area owned by the venue but open to the public without barriers etc. to access, you have not yet committed a crime generally. When they ask you to leave it has not become a crime. When it is made clear the owner doesn’t want you there and you disregard their wishes it generally becomes a crime unless an area is already not open to the public. Unless a fence keeps you away from the fence, the fence itself is open to the public basically.
It's funny coz they are 2 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
The comment is pure assumption.
Multiple scenarios exist where this is not criminal.
1. The game could be a local or free to watch game and the venue is simply at capacity or some other factors make it so that it isn’t practical or those three simply do not want to watch from the stands.
2. It is, or has been, common that event staff or volunteers and often family or friends be allowed to watch events from non public areas of the venue. This could simply be three such people who are not permitted or possessing ticketed seats but have authorization to watch the event from this area.
3. It is not actually illegal to watch an event without tickets. It is again- common- when air shows, races, golf games, concerts, etc. are conducted where the event is visible from public or private non event venue property, watching the event if it is in your view is perfectly legal.
If you own a condo and the balcony overlooks the stadium you can legally watch as much as you want so long as…
Multiple scenarios exist where this is not criminal.
1. The game could be a local or free to watch game and the venue is simply at capacity or some other factors make it so that it isn’t practical or those three simply do not want to watch from the stands.
2. It is, or has been, common that event staff or volunteers and often family or friends be allowed to watch events from non public areas of the venue. This could simply be three such people who are not permitted or possessing ticketed seats but have authorization to watch the event from this area.
3. It is not actually illegal to watch an event without tickets. It is again- common- when air shows, races, golf games, concerts, etc. are conducted where the event is visible from public or private non event venue property, watching the event if it is in your view is perfectly legal.
If you own a condo and the balcony overlooks the stadium you can legally watch as much as you want so long as…
Did I miss any? 2 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
I mean…. Point of fact…. Both these men were assassinated. So I mean…. Someone hated them at least enough to… murder them…..
4
Based on a true story when researching my family tree 9 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So your entire ancestry is most likely full of some combination and percentage of those willing to do anything to survive and reproduce and those able to play on the psychology of other humans.
▼
Based on a true story when researching my family tree 9 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
You don’t know. You may be certain, and you may actually get the results you predicted, but that doesn’t actually prove anything beyond that something you said came true. If I say that you’ll see a rabbit tomorrow and you do, does that mean I knew the future? It’s at worst a guess and at best an educated guess. We won’t know if you’ll see a rabbit tomorrow until tomorrow is over. That’s how this works from the human perspective.
The people that survive tend to be the people who do what is necessary to survive, in a world that now and through history has often been brutal and savage, those are the people who help make the world brutal and savage and who survive a brutal and savage world most often.
▼
The people that survive tend to be the people who do what is necessary to survive, in a world that now and through history has often been brutal and savage, those are the people who help make the world brutal and savage and who survive a brutal and savage world most often.
Based on a true story when researching my family tree 9 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
In those moments, the dynamics between people caught in that moment together can differ drastically from what is the general cultural norm for their age and place.
But- here is a thought experiment.
How many people do you think would have said “I’d eat my Buddy/sister/a stranger if I got stuck” had you asked before they left on the Donner Party?
This is a concept that surprisingly few people accept or even have a grasp for that don’t have relevant experience. “I know who I am..” “be true to yourself” “I would never…” No. likely not. Your “self” is a concept, a fabrication of perception. Ignoring the larger philosophical or quantum physics debates and such on the nature of reality and human consciousness and taking things at face value- no matter how certain you are, saying you would never do something is a bit like saying you can mail a nothing but net shot from full court when you e never picked up a basketball or thrown a ball in your life.
▼
But- here is a thought experiment.
How many people do you think would have said “I’d eat my Buddy/sister/a stranger if I got stuck” had you asked before they left on the Donner Party?
This is a concept that surprisingly few people accept or even have a grasp for that don’t have relevant experience. “I know who I am..” “be true to yourself” “I would never…” No. likely not. Your “self” is a concept, a fabrication of perception. Ignoring the larger philosophical or quantum physics debates and such on the nature of reality and human consciousness and taking things at face value- no matter how certain you are, saying you would never do something is a bit like saying you can mail a nothing but net shot from full court when you e never picked up a basketball or thrown a ball in your life.
I mean think about it for a second man. Tomato doesn’t exist as a plant in the “old world.” Tomato came to Europe after establishing consistent commerce with the Americas. Pizza as most know it literally couldn’t exist without American produce.