They’re gone in a blink of the eye so why bother trying one, if you like it you’ll only be disappointed when it’s gone forever the next day.

It depends on the process. Some processes literally make leather non-biodegradable. I’m not saying that faux leather is any better I’m just saying it’s more complicated than people realise. The leather industry could certainly use some improvement.

By that logic any smaller predator that feeds on small animals is a “cat” and any large predator that feeds on larger animals and/or hunts in packs is a “dog” which is… Not at all how nature works. Foxes are canines that exhibit a lot of classic canine behaviour and very little cat behaviour in top of many behaviours unique to foxes, domestic cats are not actually solitary creatures just solitary hunters hence why they develop colonies, some wolf species are solitary hunters such as the maned wolf, birds of prey also fill the same ecological niche as cats, as do weasels, chimpanzees are also apex pack hunting mammals too but no one would ever say they’re running “dog software”, heck humans are the ultimate Apex pack hunting predator, does that mean wolves are just running “human software”? Lions and hyenas exhibit completely different behaviours and social structures from both domestic dogs and cats as well as each other, lions also aren’t the only large cats that hunt in groups, cheetahs can as well when they form a coalition. It just seems like a dumb way to classify animals as if dogs and cats aren’t extremely diverse and complex animals in their own right and instead every member has to be forced into these awkward and inaccurate “hardware vs software” stereotypes.

I mean, if you can find a way to harness it, it sounds like the perfect way to banish enemies to the shadow realm.

Mainly birds of prey I imagine.

Yes because this community definitely doesn’t have a huge bias towards US culture.

Foxes don’t share all that many behaviours with cats though, they share more with dogs, so I don’t know why people always say this.

I mean it would probably be such a pain in the ass to ship weed down there I doubt anyone who works there would bother.

The long standing definitions of the word that don’t necessitate that you can only be proud of things you’ve personally done seem like plenty good reason to me. National pride isn’t an excuse to be an asshole or a bigot or to oppress people, but national pride has never been necessary for people to exhibit that sort of behaviour. Being proud of your origins and your roots and where you’ve come from is not inherently a bad thing if you’re mindful about it. And just because you don’t personally feel proud of your own roots, and I’m sure your reasons for feeling that way are perfectly legitimate, that doesn’t mean you have to project your personal feelings towards your own roots on other people who feel differently about theirs.

There is nothing in the definitions of pride that necessitates it either, so yes including if you care about what it actually means rather than what you want it to mean. If you look up the definition of the word it includes multiple definitions of pride that do not require your own personal accomplishments or actions, and those are not new definitions. It’s extremely common in the English language for a word to have multiple meanings depending on the context they’re used in that may be connected but are not necessarily the same.

That’s a leap in logic. Pride is a personal thing no one else can dictate what you are or aren’t proud of, nor can they dictate what you’re ashamed of. Someone else being proud of their heritage in no way implies that you have to he ashamed of yours.

There’s nothing that necessitates that you can only be proud of things you have personally done.

I mean there are different types of pride. Being lgbt isn’t a decision either, yet we have Pride, because being proud of who you are is often about more than just accomplishments, for many people it’s about accepting and embracing the parts of you that you can’t change. Just because you don’t personally like that it includes that definition, it doesn’t erase the fact that that is a part of the definition and has been for a long time.

Stuff like this is part of why I dropped out of multimedia production in college, I only enjoy that stuff as a hobby for myself, doing it for other people is a creative nightmare lol

That’s an entirely different argument, and not the argument you were making. You are claiming they are antisemitic because they don’t like religion, when being antisemitic is absolutely not the same thing as being anti-religion. And being anti-liberal isn’t the same thing as hating gay people just because they’re a majority liberal group of people, there are conservative gay people too believe it or not, that’s a false equivalence. Also gay people don’t choose to be gay, but religion or politics is not something you’re born with and are unable to change, religion/politics are willful beliefs and practices and something you choose to be a part of, if you have an issue with hating religion as a whole that’s fine you can have that opinion, but argue that instead of making baseless accusations, and use an appropriate argument instead of comparing being gay to being religious. If they’d singled out people who are ethnically Jewish at any point then maybe you’d have half a leg to stand on with that comparison, but they’re not talking about ethnically Jewish people they’re talking about religion in general, and it’s possible to be ethnically Jewish without being religious. Hell they never even named Judaism explicitly in their original comment. It is canon to most mainstream Christian beliefs that Jesus was a Jewish person killed by other Jewish people, whether you like it or not, if you have a problem with that take it up with Christianity but that’s not the other commenter’s fault.

I mean it’s the Onion but this can absolutely be true, shape affects stuff like surface area which can affect the taste experience.

There are a LOT of very good reasons for someone to hate religion as a whole that have absolutely nothing to do with being antisemitic. And I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t hate religion myself, though I can understand why some people do, especially since I’m a member of the lgbt community.

“it wasn’t the Romans it was the Jews” is also a fact of the most mainstream versions of Christian/Catholic beliefs. It’s also a fact of their beliefs that Jesus himself was Jewish, and I was taught both of those things when growing up in a religious school system without ever being taught to blame or hate Jewish people for it because Jewish people were also regularly victims of oppression in the bible being saved whether by Moses or God himself or others. Someone using it as an example of religious infighting doesn’t automatically mean it’s being used as an antisemitic argument. Whether you take issue with how that account of events came to exist historically isn’t the fault of the other commenter, it is still part of the mythos as most people know it, and the conversation was referring specifically to the mythos. Jesus forgiving his own people and telling god “they know not what they do” is kind of an important aspect of his sacrifice and martyrdom.

Well I’m trying to avoid sending anyone after the commenters en mass hence why I censored them but if you look in my comment history you can find the thread about a month back.

It’s important not to chug a large amount all at once, it will take time for it to help with a dehydration headache either way and drinking it more spaced out a bit will prevent you from feeling sick. Having to pee more is just part of the price that comes with staying hydrated sadly, but I’d take that over the effects of dehydration.