Isn’t ravioli just a dumpling?
I raise with
Cube rule does it better.
I was with you most of the way there (shout out to the chip butty), right up until that “pigs in blankets” abomination turned up. What in gods name has happened to them. Where’s the bacon, and why have they got that pastry nonsense on them? It’s behaviour like that this that explains the state of the world these days
This is absolutely beautiful. 🥲 🧑🍳 💋
You are free to interpret the nature of rice however you wish.
😂
Yep, steak is a salad.
It’s pronounced data.
deleted by creator
Ooh, how about “data” is plural.
0.999… and 1 are equal
1 / 3 = 0.333…
0.333… + 0.333… = 0.666…
0.666… + 0.333… = 0.999…
1 = 0.999…
No fight here
both completely factually correct and bullshit
Purple is a flavor
That’s grape.
Blue is a flavor, and it’s yucky.
NyQuil is blue flavored.
So are blue raspberry icees.
Icees taste like NyQuil.
Right. Same flavor as Blue Curaçao.
NyQuil is dark green
Blue is sour
Only for liquids.
Chiropracty / Chiropractics is all fake.
It’s at best pseudoscience and a scam, and also an actual cult
Thats more than five words tho
It is, but I felt you’d done the “5 words” bit nicely in the first place. Consider it more of “five words and a bit of a foot-note”
I only need 2:
JavaScript frameworksI won’t react
Cats are better than dogs
People shouldn’t keep pets
That’s ridiculous. The singular of ravioli is raviolo, a singular pop tart couldn’t possibly be multiple ravioli.
Raviolo is a large ravioli
I think the hyphen in poptart is a bigger sin than the statement.
But… Isn’t this a dash?
pop•
tartsThe symbol you used, “•” U+2022 is the bullet, but what if the packaging is actually using “·” U+2027, the interpunct, which would suggest the product is actually called “poptarts” not “pop-tarts”. Or it might be “·” U+22C5, multiplication, meaning we could simplify the product name to “2(pt)oars”.
Two part oars.
I think you’re over-complicating the very obvious answer the brand is trying to convey: it’s clearly read as “two part oars”.
https://trademarks.justia.com/854/44/pop-85444103.html apparently it’s the canon name and I hate that.
Sorry it’s actually a lasagna.
There are 3 foods. There is soup. There is salad. And then there is lasagna. That’s it.
Where does steak fall into these classifications?
Steak is single layer meat lasagna with no sauce
This is infuriating, I will not have it. No.
A vanilla soy latte is a bean soup.
Would spaghetti and meatballs be salad?
Vegans are right.
I have an in-law who’s a vegan and explained it as “if I consume less there’s a tiny bit less cruelty. A tiny bit less demand.” I like that. It’s not about purity. It’s about trying.
I’m still not vegan. I suppose that doesn’t say good things about me.
This might just be non-vegan apologia, but I like to think that recognising the ethical merit in veganism is a step in the right direction, especially if you manage to not feel unhelpful levels of guilt about it (my ex’s mom was annoying as hell, because she would cry if she ever thought about the fact that the meat she was eating used to be an animal. She felt so guilty about it that the cognitive dissonance caused her to reflexively avoid growth.)
I used to be irrationally somewhat anti-vegan, but now I am merely non-vegan. I’m not even vegetarian yet, but I am closer to that than I was a year ago. I’m not there yet, but I’m trying. It makes me uncomfortable to recognise the cognitive dissonance in me when I acknowledge that my current diet is not in line with my personal ethics. However, sitting with that discomfort is one of the ways in which I’m trying.
Along those same lines, give yourself space to grow. The fact that you recognise being non vegan as not saying good things about you is itself, a little good thing, in my opinion. It’s not much, but that self awareness is definitely pointing you in the right direction.
I can see where your in-law’s coming from, but to put a finer point on it:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
That’s why vegans aren’t interested in “cruelty free” animal products. It’s not just the fact that there is still a lot of cruelty involved; we’re opposed to animal exploitation regardless. Veganism naturally came out of the animal rights movement.
I agree with Alex O’Connor. Yes, they’re right, but also, fuck that, I don’t care.
It’s nice when as a society we decide whose lives matter and whos don’t
We all do. Some people just extend that that circle larger than others.
Carnivores/omnivores extend it to most humans.
Pescatarians to mammals with regard to food, but often not to other mild inconveniences like pest control.
Vegetarians to the rest of animals with the same caveat.
Jains to animals with fewer caveats, but not to bacteria, plants, or fungus.
And we’re distant cousins of all of these.
There are arguments to be made for each line, like sapience, sentience, consciousness, and pain response, but the line chosen is largely arbitrary.
And vegans?
Somewhere between vegetarians and jains, depending on how much they respect the right to life of non-mammal animals (roaches, mosquitos, ants, etc) outside of food contexts. But veganism isn’t generally a distinction from vegetarianism with regard to right to life, just rights more broadly, so it’s on a somewhat different axis. Many seem only concerned with “cute” animals (i.e. mammals and a small subset of marine animals) outside of food contexts, but I’m sure there are some who wouldn’t bug-bomb their house. I doubt many sweep the ground in front of them to avoid stepping on bugs, like devout Jains. In fact, most vegans would consider that extreme, which betrays their bias towards the cute animals that deserve to live, since they’d absolutely go out of their way to not step on one of their preferred species.
Look, religion is one thing, science is another.
Jainism is a religion, as peaceful as it is, it also has it’s flaws. Some jains use dairy products because it is generally acceptable, though with modern practices it obviously violates their core principles, but loopholes like that are common to religions.
Veganism is pretty simple and practical, it is all about reducing harm. Of course each vegan has their own interpretation of what constitutes as unnecessary harm and what doesn’t, but it is rooted in our scientific understanding of who can actually be harmed.
It is far more than a diet, it is the understanding that my wants are not above others needs and rights, human or otherwise.
The way I see it, Veganism is the most moral framework that is rooted in reality.
Plant Lives Matter.
Y’all are a bunch of plant murderders.
Considering that you have about the same amount of brain power as a plant, I might just be convinced.
Lmao, snowflake couldn’t take a joke
The fact that people care about animals and want less suffering in the world triggered you to provoke. But sure, I am the sensitive one 😘
Being transphobic and ignoring pronouns does not make you a “tough guy”, snowflake.
A bowl of cereal is cold soup.
Get the FUCK out of HERE right NOW!
Sounds right.
Gazpacho-Os
Ravioli is a sandwich.
A sandwich is actually a type of lasagna. Close but no cigar.
It’s an empanada.
no a sandwich is a variation of pop tart.
Closer to a crustable
