Liking Gardevoir makes you a furry
and there are so many better ways to cook it than shoving the whole thing in the oven for four hours!the only reason people dislike turkey is because they let it dry the fuck out. if people truly cooked the turkey well the masses would realize turkey is one of the best poultry
ever heard of stir frydisclaimer: have sensory issues, slight bias. vegetables are only good when they're raw. steamed, boiled, baked, sun dried? all suck. theyre just mush at that point. raw vegetables have that C R U N C H and they actually taste like something. perfection.
as for bird: duck is the underrated champion. if u eat ur bird meat dry u have no taste buds
To me, the main distinction is that when morality or laws are given by a deity rather than self-derived, a challenge to those impositions could stop at "because X said so." If a god tells me I shouldn't masturbate and someone challenges that it could end at "god told me so." If I come to that conclusion myself, it could be challenged and the question "why?" wouldn't end in "because I was told." The challenge could go further than that as I will have to justify my own view.Now the supplementary points are the same premise reworded: justification through God cannot be debated due to the nature of God. Why do you think this is, any more so than any other centric moral code? What in particular makes "divine right" any less challengeable as an argument compared to someone's moral code or other intrinsic values they have? You claim this but make no argument for it.
I want to make clear that I don't think the absence of religion will mean that all tragedies will stop or even the tragedies I had mentioned, but rather the religious basis on which those tragedies may form would be eliminated, thus reducing the amount or the issues that religious based tragedies bring. However, I do see what you are saying in your points about human nature.Rather than Religion being some "higher level" justification for tragedies around the world, it is far more likely that tragic events occur due to a myriad of complex grey reasoning. You seem to be in the typical anti-theist state of young adulthood (one which I myself went through when I was 17 or so). I strongly recommend researching cultures outside of your own. The blanket statement of accusing a broad cultural pillar of religion when your exposure to it is exclusively the Abrahamic triad, and a shallow Western view at that, is telling.
I am interested, thank you. I will check these out especially now that I have a bunch of free time on my hand. I want to say also that the points I didn't respond to that you had made were sound and having not read the material yet or looked into the religions you cited, I don't feel like it's in my place to respond to those particular points without doing those things first.If you are interested in actual literature to read through to try to expand more can be found below:
Understanding arguments against jure divino arguments (divine law)
Two Treatsies of Civil Government - Locke
Critique of Pure Reason - Kant
Understanding ontological arguments (proofs of God)
Meditations on First Philosophy - Descartes
I used to think this, but I think it's a sort of constitutional problem that these people have where they think the pink in their steak is blood and can't stand the thought of eating blood. This might be thought of as type of aversion to the mythos of steak as a 'bloody' (and possibly therefore masculine) food. I have cooked a few steaks for such people and usually try to talk them into letting them down to letting me take their steak off at 140-145 (medium) in order to save it from a horrible fate. I honestly can't understand what it is they get out of their steak. I can appreciate that for a lot of more w.e cuts of meat it doesn't matter that much. But once you're up to cooking a ribeye or T-bone it's pretty obvious to me what you lose by cooking it to medium versus medium rare.
My parents eat steak well done because they grew up in a country where quality and hygiene standards, or lack thereof, meant that undercooked meat was a legitimate health risk. Pork dominates meat consumption there, which is much riskier to undercook, and this impacts the perception of every meat and how meat should be cooked.
This is by and by the greatest take of all time.If your opinions have not changed at all in 5 years, then you have not adequately examined and adjusted them for nuance.
Your understanding of the world is basic and flawed. You know almost nothing beyond a surface level knowledge about anything, and you knew even less 5 years ago. If your opinions have remained unchanged in that time, then you bring nothing useful to a debate. The first opinions that you should question are your own, not those of someone who disagrees with you.
Left vs Right: "he's talking about you!"
View attachment 237126
Hell yes. I even take a step further and cook my omelettes and scrambled eggs having a looser consistency. Also, breaking open a perfectly poached egg and letting it run all over the rest of my food is an out of body experience for me.also if you cook eggs and your yolks aren't runny what's wrong with you
one of the constants on internet discussion forums: ragging on those who eat steak well done
Agreed with both. I don't think she's the best singer but I think she fits the voice of Elsa perfectly for how the writers were trying to portray her. And yes, the "Show Yourself" scene is one of the most beautifully animated sequences I've ever seen. The song is also one of the best that Disney has written.The Hunchback of Norte Dame is the best soundtrack to ever come out of Disney. It might just be an alright film, but that freaking score is tops.
Hot take on Frozen: Idina Menzel has a limited range and most of the time struggles or sings in an unpleasant tone in order to reach the notes.
Hot take in Frozen 2: the scene where Elsa repeatedly runs into the ocean, then is attacked by and tames the water horse, then the entire song that follows is one of the best animated sequences of all time.
After revisiting this take I'm actually really on the fence on this and have some question. Is this just a broad blanket statement for everything? Like my views on abortion haven't changed in 5 years and I still stand by what I believe. Like does this mean that my view on the topic is flawed. I don't know what to think about this. Is my opinion even relevant if it hasn't changed in 5 years. Like even if its the "woke/popular opinion." If this statement is your opinion and it doesn't change in 5 years does your statement still hold true? After revisiting this I disagree with this heavily.If your opinions have not changed at all in 5 years, then you have not adequately examined them to adjust your point of view for nuances.
Your understanding of the world is basic and flawed. You know almost nothing beyond surface level knowledge about anything, and you knew even less 5 years ago. If your opinions have remained unchanged in that time, then you bring nothing useful to a debate. The first opinions that you should question are your own, not those of someone who disagrees with you.
it literally just means think about your own stance and others once in a while.After revisiting this take I'm actually really on the fence on this and have some question. Is this just a broad blanket statement for everything? Like my views on abortion haven't changed in 5 years and I still stand by what I believe. Like does this mean that my view on the topic is flawed. I don't know what to think about this. Is my opinion even relevant if it hasn't changed in 5 years. Like even if its the "woke/popular opinion." If this statement is your opinion and it doesn't change in 5 years does your statement still hold true? After revisiting this I disagree with this heavily.
EDIT: originally I was super on board with this because of the message it portrayed. It pushed people to actively change they're opinions and constantly learn about things. However, I think its just too broad of a statement and needs to be worded differently in order for me to agree with it again
I know a lot more about abortion than I did 5 years ago and my opinion still stands and yes I agree its not a black and white topic. If your curious I still think abortion should be legal up until the embryo develops into a fetus which is around 8 weeks. Despite knowing a lot more about abortion now than I did when I was 15 I still stand by this stance and I think its justifiable.it literally just means think about your own stance and others once in a while.
If you think you still know the exact same amount of information that pertains to abortion now as you did 5 years ago then you probably haven't adequately tried to adjust your stance. Abortion isn't really one of those things that's just so black and white, so if there hasn't been a single thing to make you question your stance, regardless of where you are, then you're probably entrenched in the opinion.
You can still hold the same views in some sort of blanket statement world but no you haven't adequately assessed your opinion if you don't know more knowledge at least
Here's something a little less "political": Frozen is the best animated feature-length film to have ever been produced by Walt Disney Company. In terms of music, characters, plot, voice-acting, animation, and use of the "Disney formula," it is superior to all other animated films produced by Disney.
Please note that this does not mean that other Disney films are bad - The Lion King is easily a close second and tbh I could see them tying for various reasons (I think Frozen's soundtrack is the best one that Disney has ever produced, by TLK has a more consistent progression of story and plot development, though I think Frozen teaches a more relatable and memorable lesson). I simply believe that Frozen is the best animated film that Disney has ever produced and if you were to compare it side-by-side with any other animated Disney film, it would always rank higher in my books.
The plot is easy to follow and not overly convoluted, the main character (Anna) is extremely likable and relatable, Elsa is one of the most memorable Disney characters to have ever been created, the plot "villain" twist is well-timed and successful, the message is sweet and was not really seen before in Disney (at least not explicitly as it was portrayed in Frozen), the comedic relief is also memorable and actually helps progress the plot instead of just dragging it on, and the soundtrack is easily the catchiest and most powerful collection of music that Disney has ever produced. There's a reason "Let it Go" still manages to receive tens of thousands of views every day on YouTube (it just hit 2 billion a few days ago, actually).
Many people only hate Frozen because of how much of a success it was and the few issues it has are easily overshadowed by the dozens of successes and positive-traits that the film possesses. It's the movie that pulled Disney out of the commercial and creative slump that it had been experiencing during the early to mid-2000s and helped remind people of what Disney was truly capable of. Its success both in and out of the box office is just a small testament to the massive economic, social, cultural, and personal impact that this film has had around the world.