LwL

It works both ways depending on the timescale you apply. You could compare the murder of lukes parents to october 7th. It fits the "bad thing where people die happens, response kills far more" that applies to palestine too. And the public perception, especially of people supporting israel, seems to think the conflict started there.

I saw it that way, but still as a post critical of israel saying "it's easy to see an atrocity and want revenge at all costs, but that doesn't make it right". The "yea" at the end implies to me that what we thought with the fiction was maybe mistaken.

Of course, the death star was a weapon of mass destruction seconds from destroying a planet, so there really isn't much moral ambiguity there, but not mentioning that is likely deliberate in order to make the comparison work.

It should be a net benefit for society. Any system in which it isn't is a very flawed system. Like most of the world right now.

I do this, I hate it, but I can't get rid of it so I've started to accept it.

I agree with pretty much all of that but I still wouldn't say I hate dogs, both because none of that is the dogs fault and it's still possible to have pleasant interactions with one. I would just much rather not be around a dog than be around one. This might just be a difference in what hate implies.

I feel similarly about children. Theyre loud and annoying and I dislike being around them, but I still have no intention of ever hurting one and would like them to be happy anyway.

I definitely agree with the point you're making, though I'd just like to add that other dictionaries define racism as including discriminating by ethnicity, which is such a dubiously defined word it could be just about anything, and certainly can apply to your example of different parts of india.

I am also very much influenced by the german definiton of the word, seeing how that's my native language, which (according to duden) is "Lehre, Theorie, nach der Menschen bzw. Bevölkerungsgruppen mit bestimmten biologischen oder ethnisch-kulturellen Merkmalen anderen von Natur aus über- bzw. unterlegen sein sollen" - translated: "Teaching or Theory according to which people with certain biological or ethnical-cultural traits are supposed to be naturally superior or inferior to others". This could of course include lactose tolerance (and I'd say if the comment hadn't been a joke, it'd hit the definition perfectly)

So I guess to a degree it wasjust a translation issue. The whole idea of using race to describe humans is seen as inherently racist here, so any definition of racism using that word feels 80 years outdated to me.

Anyway back to work, cheers for an actual rational discussion, even if I think we're only really in disagreement over semantics anyway

We only went up to ten in germany, so yea probably.

Also my god those things are pointless.

Eh... while I think that guy is full of shit, race is an entirely made up concept and discriminating based on any genetic trait is the exact same as racism. Semantical arguments are kinda bad.

It's just that no one here was discriminating because the joke in the comment and the one in the OP only work by making fun of this kind of discrimination in the first place.

There are animal haters that poison them. It's not entirely a false equivalency.

The issue with it mainly comes from dogs being a different species while humans are still just humans and someones skin color has no significant correlation to their behaviour.

It's still similarly stupid to hate all dogs by default because dogs still have personalities and some can be just fine. And I say this as someone that doesn't like most dogs either.

I have never been to a place that sold sushi and didn't have the option to order just nigiri. Other than the packed sushi at the supermarket.

I'd agree that most people here think of maki when you say sushi, but nigiri is absolutely not considered "not normal" and california rolls are called california rolls and are rarer than maki.

The intro to the very article you linked states 3 exceptions lol

You kind of can't. Caloric intake from food varies by person, as does energy use. You can use a calculator for a ballpark measure and then see how it works out for your weight.

Type of food can also matter, because depending on your stomach bacteria, you will also get different energy value from different foods. I thought an easy way for me to lose weight would be to stop eating sweets (since i prob averaged around 500kcal nominal value per day), but nope I ended up gaining weight, probably from eating slightly more normal food. What I found works for me was delaying each meal for longer so I end up eating one large and one smaller meal per day. Going to bed slightly hungry then I usually wake up not hungry and it takes a few hours before I feel the need to eat something, etc.

I even once lost weight drinking about 2 liters of choccy milk per day but eating a lot less regular food, though I wouldn't recommend that because that much sugar is terrible for you anyway. Far worse than being a bit overweight, probably.

Mine does a fine job washing off crusty dishes. Mainly need to make sure the temperature is high enough, 50 or ideally 60°C. Also helps against grease build-up in the internals which will make it last longer.

Or maybe your dishwasher just went so hard on the water saving it no longer does its job, which is a real issue sadly