Jump to content

Petty Things That Get On Your Nerves...


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

As a stand alone product, disregarding other areas of diet, olive oil is a healthier (or for the sake of pedantry) less unhealthy than butter. Fact.

If I was a Dundee fan, I'd end with "Thank You" as well.

I mean, aye. I'm not arguing that butter is less healthy. Im arguing that the difference is t that much and can't account for obesity compared to other countries. 

In scandi countries they're more active, they eat packed lunches instead of buying from a canteen/Vendi/take away place and don't have the same aversion to vegetables (which contain the micro nutrients that fuel the metabolism) that our kids (and far to many fucking adults) are allowed to have.

Thank you*

(*Ken I'm not a Dee fan either, but I like it)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The continents have a well-defined, non-arbitrary geographical definition about which there is broad concensus. When saying "Asia", "Europe" or "Africa" you're referring to the defined geographical area. If people start using them willy-nilly or referring to some nebulous cultural definition it erodes the meaning to the point where it's no longer useful for communication..


I think there’s a broad consensus (at least in Europe) now over what constitutes Europe, Asia and Africa but I would disagree that it’s non-arbitrary. You could probably destroy Turkish social media for a day by asking if they’re European or Asian.


I've been to Africa twice - Egypt and Morocco. I would have described their culture as Berber and Arab repectively, as distinct to what most (imho) would describe as African, and I would have pigeonholed as Sub-Saharan African. Then you think, "what about South Africa? Angola? Madagascar? 
Much more respectful, not to mention accurate, to refer to the countries rather than some all-encompassing generalisation of an area 120 (Africa) or 130 (Asia) times bigger than the UK. 
ETA: Make that Arab and Berber.


I think there’s been a bit of pushback in recent years over the Berber tag because of where it (I believe) comes from. I have an Algerian friend though who rejects being labelled an Arab all the same which is where they say part of the pushback against the Berber label comes from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think there’s a broad consensus (at least in Europe) now over what constitutes Europe, Asia and Africa but I would disagree that it’s non-arbitrary. You could probably destroy Turkish social media for a day by asking if they’re European or Asian.

Well Turkish social media is an absolute bin fire so that's more than likely. Having lived there and travelled to its corners of say that the vast majority of Turks agree that the border of Europe and Asia is at the Bosphorus.
There's a clear geographical definition of the continents that works very well. It was only when people started using geographical terms in a cultural, ethnological or political context that trouble arose. It's one of the reasons I disagree with people who take the positing that language is constantly evolving so whatever people say is correct. Definitions matter.


I think there’s been a bit of pushback in recent years over the Berber tag because of where it (I believe) comes from. I have an Algerian friend though who rejects being labelled an Arab all the same which is where they say part of the pushback against the Berber label comes from.

Berbers are absolutely not Arabs, that'd be like calling a Celt, Anglo-Saxon. One of the issues with the Berber name is that it isn't what they call themselves (which is Amazigh) it's what foreign powers called them. The other issue is that Berber has the same root as barbarian, which is a very negative term, so it's not surprising they're not big fans of the branding.

One of the chaps in Algeria who explained this to me went on to say that Jews are less than dogs, so it was hard to be too sympathetic to their cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trackdaybob said:

That's pretty recent i.e up until last week it was 4. Which is still wrong.  

Thrashings start at five, and require a gap of at least three goals. That's the law. You wouldn't say Cowdenbeath "thrashed" St Johnstone 5-4. Mainly because it would never happen, but also because of the scoreline being too close.

Does the margin have to increase as the scoreline goes up? Would 10-7 count as a thrashing, or is that just what would be administered to the goalkeepers at full time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...