|
What the hell? Chachi has a new favorite as of 17:18 on May 29, 2014 |
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Somebody linked this article on Facebook: You should stop drinking most of those beers because they're shite.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Chachi posted:What the hell? I don't know why, either 
Aphtonites has a new favorite as of 17:30 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Aphtonites posted:It's someone sharing articles with pornographic thumbnails and content, right on Facebook where their friends and family can see them. because scams. the style of broken english and bizarre not-really-saying-what-happens-in-the-video is obvious
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The easiest way to shoot down this poo poo and hear the crickets is going "If it came down to it and your partner suddenly became irrationally violent towards you and you were in a hand to hand fight, how many women reading this think they can overpower their boyfriend and subdue them? Alright how about the vice versa for men?" I'm not sure where you're going with this. Violence against someone is okay or even funny if the victim looks like they might be stronger than the aggressor?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:I'm not sure where you're going with this. Violence against someone is okay or even funny if the victim looks like they might be stronger than the aggressor? He's saying it's Not Okay, but one situation has the potential to turn out worse than the other one does. He's talking about Practical rather than Ideal.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Atmus posted:He's saying it's Not Okay, but one situation has the potential to turn out worse than the other one does. yeah seriously. It's wrong to be violent against someone period but we can't ignore the fact that men generally have considerable more strength particularly upper body than women do, like the scale of what consequences the violence might escalate to as well as the larger systemic problem are nowhere near equal and we shouldn't treat them as such.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Somebody linked this article on Facebook: Why in God's name would you defend putting food additives in lovely beer?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Finally have something worth sharing! Gio Metric is my friend; I don't know the OP, it showed up on my feed via "[Friend] commented on this". OP and everyone else except for Gio are men. The bar sign in question reads "I like my beer like I like my violence: Domestic". Sue Shee is the epitome of class, mocking her scars and being like STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS ABOUT YOUR ISSUES SO I CAN LAFF OVER HERE  (The story itself has a happy ending; after a patron complained the sign was immediately taken down/erased and the general manager was subsequently fired.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Would it have been funny if the sign said "Domestic beer is like domestic abuse: Terrible!"?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Why in God's name would you defend putting food additives in lovely beer? All right, I'll concede. Food additives suck and it's terrible that they put corn syrup in everything now. I was mostly amused at the concern over GMO ingredients especially in a product that literally will kill you if you drink too much of it. *gasp* I can't be putting genetically modified chemicals in my body! *gets wasted on organic beer* To be fair, I drink a lot of lovely beer. I'd buy the good stuff if I could afford it! 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:yeah seriously. It's wrong to be violent against someone period but we can't ignore the fact that men generally have considerable more strength particularly upper body than women do, like the scale of what consequences the violence might escalate to as well as the larger systemic problem are nowhere near equal and we shouldn't treat them as such. What the gently caress is wrong with you you utter gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Valencia posted:Finally have something worth sharing! Gio Metric is my friend; I don't know the OP, it showed up on my feed via "[Friend] commented on this". OP and everyone else except for Gio are men. Jesus Christ. It's one thing to attempt to brush it off and say "People are too sensitive these days" It's another to say "Your extreme assault by the hands of someone you trusted and loved is just like me getting a scratch, gently caress you." It really makes me mad too, considering I watched my mom get beaten on a regular basis, and culminated with my dad trying to stab her to death in front of me and my sister one night. I was just too sensitive to be traumatized by that! Suck it up, princess! No different than a minor cut on the finger!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Explain How! posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you you utter gently caress. This is the correct way to respond in an argument?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Explain How! posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you you utter gently caress. What in his statement was incorrect? Are men not GENERALLY SPEAKING larger, stronger, and more durable than women? You did see the bit where he acknowledges that woman on man violence is a problem, right? I mean yeah it would be nice if the cops had some sort of scientific metric they could use (a combination of body mass and occupational strength/safety limitations, looking at any offensive/defensive training of either party) to determine how 'wrong' the aggressor is, but that's not the way things are right now. "Women: Less Durable Than Men" isn't ideal, but GENERALLY SPEAKING it's the best system we have right now.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Why in God's name would you defend putting food additives in lovely beer? 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Explain How! posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you you utter gently caress. I accept reality. Seriously, people in the general sense are not afraid of women, both women and men. When men avoid the seedy parts of town as well, they're not afraid of being attacked and mugged by a woman. When LGBT people male or female fear getting beat for existing, it's not a woman they're picturing and fearing in a hypothetical attack. When women are angry, some men actually go "aw, you're cute when you're mad", the problem of public harassment is almost 100% a problem of males harassing females and all of it it probably has everything to do with the substantial strength difference and how much each respective gender fears a reprisal from their own gender and the opposite gender. e: I mean as always the Margaret Atwood quote never stops being relevant quote:"Why do men feel threatened by women?" I asked a male friend of mine. (I love that wonderful rhetorical device, "a male friend of mine." It's often used by female journalists when they want to say something particularly bitchy but don't want to be held responsible for it themselves. It also lets people know that you do have male friends, that you aren't one of those fire-breathing mythical monsters, The Radical Feminists, who walk around with little pairs of scissors and kick men in the shins if they open doors for you. "A male friend of mine" also gives—let us admit it—a certain weight to the opinions expressed.) So this male friend of mine, who does by the way exist, conveniently entered into the following dialogue. "I mean," I said, "men are bigger, most of the time, they can run faster, strangle better, and they have on the average a lot more money and power." "They're afraid women will laugh at them," he said. "Undercut their world view." Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, "Why do women feel threatened by men?" "They're afraid of being killed," they said. Amused to Death has a new favorite as of 20:30 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
I wrote a short paper on depleted uranium for a MSc HAZMAT course. Without getting into the boring details, the punch line is that DU is relatively safe and nobody has ever died from exposure. Nor does it travel far in the environment, even in water, because of it's very high molecular weight. The catch is that if you're exposed to DU, it will be in concert with poo poo that's a lot worse for you like war, plane crashes, industrial accidents, or heavy metal exposure. Also, a lot more things have naturally occurring uranium in them than you'd ever imagine (hope everybody washes their vegetables!). Hopefully the conversation hasn't drifted too much from the topic while I went to dig up my paper  (e. it has  )
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Why in God's name would you defend putting food additives in lovely beer? Those beers may or may not be lovely, but what's wrong with food additives in general? Be specific. As a formulation scientist nothing annoys me more than people bemoaning 'additives' or 'preservatives' on facebook. Similarly, raging against 'processed' foods. Nothing is inherently bad about any of those things. What exactly is wrong with not dying of botulism toxin? You may have a problem with a particular additive or a particular processing method (though in my experience, most of these complaints show 0 understanding of science), but slamming everything is super dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:Those beers may or may not be lovely, but what's wrong with food additives in general? Be specific. Shill for Big Chemicals spotted.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
 Ugh.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
My favorite thing people complain about in food is dyes from insects. You'd think people so worried about the terror of having chemicals(!!) in poo poo would be happy for a company using natural ingredients. I assume they just use it to creep people out and make them more cynical about what is in your food.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:Those beers may or may not be lovely, but what's wrong with food additives in general? Be specific. Speaking just to beer, the preservatives typically used in American Domestics are what cause it to have an unpleasant flavor as it approaches room temperature, and are largely why marketing around those beers tends to promote them as frosty beverages best enjoyed right outta yer icebox. Of course they're necessary for any sort of far-reaching distribution, but there you have it. Nothing that's bad for you per se, and given the beer underneath it all there'd hardly be any quality change by taking it out, but to anyone used to drinking full-flavored beers at or around room temperature it presents its options as "cold with no flavor" or "warm and tastes a bit like sour piss".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
CapitanGarlic posted:Of course they're necessary for any sort of far-reaching distribution, but there you have it. Could you elaborate on this? I've had a lot of American beer here in Greece and haven't experienced huge drop offs. Is it a case of cost/simplicity, or something else?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:Nor does it travel far in the environment, even in water, because of it's very high molecular weight. This isn't why but yes it does have fairly low mobility in the environment.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Could you elaborate on this? I've had a lot of American beer here in Greece and haven't experienced huge drop offs. Is it a case of cost/simplicity, or something else? Cost/simplicity, for the most part - preservatives are a far less expensive option than refrigerated transportation for effectively the same results; beer does spoil at temperature eventually, so it needs either to be kept cool or to have some form of chemical preservation. That is, in fact, how IPAs came to be; in order for English pale ales to reach colonial holdings in India without spoiling, they had to add a metric ton of hops to them while they were en route via boat. Eventually the style caught on and developed into what it is today - American microbrewing communities in particular are still crazy about IPAs and similarly hoppy beers, though current trends in cask-aged styles of beer have been making a big resurgence recently. This is a thread about horrible people and I should stop derailing about delicious beer. Apologies!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
CapitanGarlic posted:Cost/simplicity, for the most part - preservatives are a far less expensive option than refrigerated transportation for effectively the same results; beer does spoil at temperature eventually, so it needs either to be kept cool or to have some form of chemical preservation. That's alright, I at least appreciate the input. I guess I hadn't noticed because I tend to get IPAs. Thank you very much! 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:Those beers may or may not be lovely, but what's wrong with food additives in general? Be specific. Every single one of them is lovely, in part because they use food additives in place of actual fresh ingredients. They use them for the same reason that many junk food companies do, and that is because it is cheap at the cost of taste. They are the frozen dinners of beers. I'm not talking about any and all possible food additives ever used in all foods, this is about beer specifically. They are only included to water it down. They give the Bud/Miller/Coors companies a fatter bottom line, for no net positive on the consumer's end. It's not about health, it's about quality. Food additives as a whole are not necessarily evil. But they most definitely interfere with the chemical process of beer. There is an extremely noticeable objective difference between cheap beer full of food additives and anything a craft brewer can come up with. There are about four basic ingredients to beer: malted barley, yeast, hops, and water. When you brew a beer, you heat the barley in water to mash it. This process produces the sugars. When you pitch in yeast, it eats the sugars and produces alcohol and carbon dioxide. When you add other sugars it changes the taste. Just like HFCS and imitation sugar taste like poo poo compared to real sugar, adding them to beer to speed up the process makes the beer taste like poo poo. But it's even worse, since we're talking about the actual chemical processes of producing beer, not just making a cheap alternative to sugar to sweeten foods. Corn and rice make beer cheaper, but taste far crappier. Xombie has a new favorite as of 22:23 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:I wrote a short paper on depleted uranium for a MSc HAZMAT course. Without getting into the boring details, the punch line is that DU is relatively safe and nobody has ever died from exposure. Nor does it travel far in the environment, even in water, because of it's very high molecular weight. I think the conversation drifted off because you might've meant to post in the Uncharted 3 thread!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:I think the conversation drifted off because you might've meant to post in the Uncharted 3 thread! It was also a topic on the last page.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:Those beers may or may not be lovely, but what's wrong with food additives in general? Be specific. Best of all is how a lot of that was complaining about fish bladders and carrageenan, both of which are about as natural as you can really get.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:As a formulation scientist nothing annoys me more than people bemoaning 'additives' or 'preservatives' on facebook. Similarly, raging against 'processed' foods. Nothing is inherently bad about any of those things. What exactly is wrong with not dying of botulism toxin? Blood disease builds character. Pussy. I'd go on about uneducated or otherwise-educated people who are just very bad at critical thinking, but you're a formulation scientist, you've heard it a million times. v Yeah, I'm no biologist. Fur20 has a new favorite as of 23:16 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Best of all is how a lot of that was complaining about fish bladders and carrageenan, both of which are about as natural as you can really get. The White Dragon posted:Blood disease builds character. Pussy. Ellie Crabcakes has a new favorite as of 22:42 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Best of all is how a lot of that was complaining about fish bladders and carrageenan, both of which are about as natural as you can really get. Carrageenan is infuriating to those of us who aren't supposed to eat it*, because it turns up in all kinds of foods where you're not expecting it. *pretty much anyone with inflammatory/autoimmune digestive stuff going on
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
I'm mostly baffled by the list at the end recommending beers that are unpasteurized and unfiltered. Why would someone going on about  CHEMICALS object to the process of filtering? Pasteurization? Those can only make things have less chemicals*, which I would think was a net win.
Zulily Zoetrope has a new favorite as of 00:11 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:The proposals are usually for replacing it with solar and wind power. And coal. Whoever is doing those proposals haven't done their research, because solar and wind both produce power periodically (as the sunlight/wind changes) whereas nuclear produces a constant amount of power (that can be ramped up or down depending on demand). Solar and wind can work really well if you combine them with hydro, because hydropower can react to changes in power demand/supply in seconds (like when the wind suddenly stops). This is important because if your countrywide demand/supply for electricity doesn't match up, you'll start getting power outages.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I'm mostly baffled by the list at the end recommending beers that are unpasteurized and unfiltered. Why would someone going on about Same people who really want to drink raw milk all the time. It's mostly because pasteurization destroys some of the vitamins in foods due to the heat. The extra little bit of vitamins are obviously worth the chance of horrible sickness!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:Whoever is doing those proposals haven't done their research, because solar and wind both produce power periodically (as the sunlight/wind changes) whereas nuclear produces a constant amount of power (that can be ramped up or down depending on demand). Solar and wind can work really well if you combine them with hydro, because hydropower can react to changes in power demand/supply in seconds (like when the wind suddenly stops). This is important because if your countrywide demand/supply for electricity doesn't match up, you'll start getting power outages. Generally they're more worried about THE ATOMICZ than they are about base load power because they're idiots and think electricity is just something that pours out of the sockets of their homes of its own free will
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Olanphonia posted:Same people who really want to drink raw milk all the time. It's mostly because pasteurization destroys some of the vitamins in foods due to the heat. The extra little bit of vitamins are obviously worth the chance of horrible sickness! Vitamin E (coli)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Gwyneth Paltrow made another dumb comment, and now everyone's letting each other know how much better they are. Such as the lovely Cindy McCain, who fights a war against irrelevance every day: And then there's this badass: 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:30
|
|