_Red_Knight_

Well, I'm not trying to be difficult, I know the sort of person you're talking about because I was once one of them. I tried and failed to lose weight multiple times in the past because I focussed on cutting calories and continued to eat a very low quality diet of low fibre, low protein, refined carbs, added sugars, etc. I only succeeded in losing weight when I started to actually eat decent foods, so I'm aware of the importance of nutritional quality. The point I am trying to make is that I genuinely don't know that "eat until you're full" is good advice for some people. Even though I now eat healthily and my appetite had reduced, I can, and sometimes do, still eat huge amounts of healthy food, especially stuff like fruit or lean meats. I still need to count my calories because otherwise I can go overboard. Maybe there's something wrong with me but, anecdotally, I've heard similar stories from other fat people. I think there are some people whose hunger/fullness cues are out of whack. I think that intuitive eating can work as a method for a lot of people but I think there are those for whom it won't work and counting calories is better for them.

> Without the full understanding of how the body works you can't use calorie counting as any reliable measure for weight loss. I agree that the nutritional quality of the foods you choose to eat is important when it comes to losing weight in a sustainable manner but I am puzzled by this statement. Calorie counting is an inherently reliable method of weight loss because, as I'm sure you know, anyone who eats fewer calories than they expend is guaranteed to lose weight (fringe cases aside). The problem is a lack of nutritional knowledge but I think counting calories is still important for people who have that knowledge because it can be just as easy to overindulge in healthy foods as in junk foods. If I eat 3,000 calories a day, I'm going to put on weight regardless of how healthy the food I'm eating is.

Given that Southampton is a busy commercial port, I don't know if they could really do much more with the waterfront than they currently do. It's not the focus of the city like it is in, say, Brighton.

I've often seen arguments about what is and isn't a sandwich and it appears to be a cultural thing. In my experience, Americans seem to call any bread products with a filling in them a sandwich (they call hot dogs sandwiches, they say "chicken sandwich", etc.) whereas Britons would define a sandwich more narrowly as filling between two slices of a normal loaf of bread (i.e. hot dogs and burgers are not sandwiches). I don't know where other cultures stand.

Dogs and cats certainly have an instinct to eat meat, cats especially because they are obligate carnivores.

I think there's a difference between "enjoyment" in the sense of satisfying an instinct and "enjoyment" in the sense of aesthetic appreciation. Non-human animals can do the former but not the latter.

Yeah, I've lost nearly 100lbs and I've actually added more spices and seasonings to make what (relatively) little I can eat better.

Some people enjoy experimentation and learning for themselves through trial and error.

So you didn't bother to actually engage with my comment and complained about the length of my explanation, even though you are the one who asked for it. Typical.

Obviously the answer to that question is highly dependant on your own belief system or philosophy. Personally, I think that humans are more valuable because only humans have the ability to actually *live* their lives, rather than merely exist. Animals just drift through life. They do the same thing every day and never aspire to do anything else, unless prompted by their human associates. They have no interests or ambitions and they can't appreciate their own life or the world in any meaningful sense. They can't feel many of the same emotions as we do (like love, which is contingent on an ability to perceive other people's personalities, which animals lack). A lot of the "intelligence" that humans ascribe to animals, and especially to their pets, is just anthropomorphism. A pet owner's mental image of their dog or cat is probably quite a bit more complex than the dog or cat truly is. Humans, on the other hand, do have an ability to appreciate live and to *live* in an active and positive way. We have interests and dreams and ambitions. We have hobbies and pursuits. We can love our family and friends and spend time with them. Any human is capable of these things. To kill a human is like burning a priceless work of art or artefact, it's the needless destruction of something with a great deal of beauty and complexity. To kill an animal is like taking the hard drive out of computer and smashing it with a hammer. Yes, it may be wasteful in certain circumstances but it isn't really a loss. Now, that's not to say that I support, for example, people going around randomly killing animals for no reason. I think that's a problem but more because of what it says about the person doing it than because of the dead animals; kind of like how a person who vandalises shops is considered bad not because damaging a building is morally wrong but because their actions show a blatant disrespect for society and a violent streak that could become violence against humans in the future. And all of this isn't to say that I dislike animals. I've had pets before and I've loved them dearly, I'm just under no illusions about their cognitive capabilities. I loved my dog but did my dog love me? No. It considered me a part of its pack and had an affection for me insofar as it had affection for any other members of its pack. But did it love me in the sense that it had a true affection for my personality? No.

Why do people always resort to this ridiculous comparison? Humans are infinitely more valuable than animals.

Nobody is suggesting that they should send forensic teams out to investigate broken windows but they should do more than simply wash their hands of the situation.

Things like the OP's munch box don't come from proper sit down restaurants but from takeaways which essentially specialise in selling greasy junk food. You only get green vegetables if you to go a Chinese restaurant, not if you order from a Chinese takeaway. Compare buying a pizza from Dominos to actually going to an Italian restaurant to have one.

This is fucking banging. I love banana bread with chocolate, I really need to make some.

Don't worry, there are plenty more chickens where these came from. We won't run out any time soon.

That actually sounds great

"When I come across a culture with different food preferences to my American ones, it means they have bad taste"

A chip sandwich is a pretty common menu item in chip shops and greasy spoons.

It's no use getting defensive about it. The fact is that fireworks exist whether you like it or not. Your responsibility as the owner of a nervous dog is to keep it indoors on days when fireworks are likely to be let off. Don't blame others for your weaknesses as a pet owner.

Exactly. People bitch and complain about the licence and then bitch and complain about the poor quality of BBC programmes. It doesn't take an expert to figure out the connection. "I would pay my licence if they made good shows" - the chicken doesn't come before the egg.

Just don't walk your dog at all on New Years Eve. It's not rocket science.

Saying that roast dinners and fish and chips aren't British foods because their ingredients originated in other countries centuries ago is just as ridiculous as the racists who complain about foreign food

There are plenty of religious people with liberal attitudes, it depends on the person.

There are some users here who seem to have such a visceral hatred of this sub that it's a wonder they continue to subscribe to it

They are high in salt but that isn't a problem as long as the rest of your diet is low in it

Yes, fair enough, I agree with that. Thank you and congrats on yours! I am also calorie counting lol. I don't mind it too much now that I've got into the rhythm of doing it except for when I go and buy a pasty or something from the bakery and have a hell of time trying to guesstimate the calories.

> very intense fitness drills and gym classes so that PE lessons were actively contributing to fitness. Everyone participating, (almost) no excuses As someone who wasn't very active as a child and hated PE, I'm not sure if this is a good approach. I hated being made to do things I didn't enjoy in PE and so I just put in the bare minimum effort and there was essentially nothing the teachers could do about because I wasn't disruptive, I was just, in effect, quiet quitting. I think children should, within reason, be allowed to do what they like during PE because they will naturally gravitate towards whatever form of activity they find most enjoyable, and I think it is best for them to be active in any way, even if it's not technically the best activity for fitness. Some activity is better than no activity.

I've also lost a significant amount of weight this year (5 stone) and, while I agree that diet is by far the main concern, I don't think it's right to dismiss exercise completely. Kids who are physically active have better general health, they have less opportunity to snack, they are increasing the amount of calories they burn (even if it's only a hundred calories or so, it all adds up, and proper sports can burn tons), and they are more likely to keep in the habit of being active.

Yeah, and so if it is impossible for someone to be a slave innately, and that is self-evidently the case, doesn't it make the distinction meaningless? It's almost like the difference between saying "it's raining" and "it's raining from the sky". The fact that rain comes from the sky is obvious and goes without saying, as does the fact that a slave is a person. I don't think anyone (who isn't a massive racist or has some other problem) thinks any less of the humanity of people in a state of slavery because they are called "slaves" and not "enslaved people". If you have any good studies that demonstrate that "[x] person" instead of "[x]" has an impact on other's people perceptions of them, I would be happy to read it. If not, then it doesn't make intuitive sense to me that it would make a difference.

Any child of a rich or famous person is automatically established in high society, the title is just a cherry on top.

A joint always works for me. If that isn't an option, I usually just stay up for a couple of hours after getting home and eat and drink a bunch.

They wouldn't exist today if they weren't descended from people thousands of years ago.

And does the fact they have a title impact you in any way?

> the latter is considered to emphasise that slaves were people in a state of slavery rather than innately slaves Well, I find this a bit baffling really. Isn't it obvious that a "slave" is a person in a state of slavery? And what does it mean to be an "innate slave"? Slavery was heritable at points in history so there were certainly plenty who were born slaves or are there people out there who believe in some kind of "slave gene"?

Literally everyone's family pre-exists the Norman Conquest lol

Allowing people to carry weapons leads to proliferation of said weapons and means that any outbreak of violence is much more dangerous due to said weapons. Serious, violent criminals will carry weapons regardless but they are a small minority, you have to think about the petty criminals and non-criminals with anger problems. If a petty criminal knows that anyone they try to mug might have a weapon, they will be more motivated to carry one themselves. If a non-criminal gets really angry, they might resort to using their weapon instead of just throwing fists. That will cause people to carry even stronger weapons for self-defence and you just an arms race on the streets.

Hence why I literally said in my comment "not that they were always given out of that".

I know we don't give them out now, I meant it in the sense that I don't mind that they still exist because plenty of those noble families began with great men.

I don't have a problem with hereditary peerages, I think they're a fine reward for people who have done exceptional things (not that they were always given out for that but every form of honour is flawed in that sense). I don't have a problem with the hereditary principle, I think it's pretty inoffensive and people who complain about it are looking for something to complain about. If their titles gave them greater rights before the law, it would be different, but they don't, so it's fine.

Dogs do have a high potential for transmitting disease. If your dog walks around town bare foot, stepping in God knows what, and then sticks its paws on the table in the pub, that is spreading disease. Just because you don't always get sick in that scenario doesn't mean that it isn't unhygienic and doesn't have the potential to cause illness.

I like McDonald's but the one near me is absolutely notorious for never giving you the correct order at the drive-through, so you always have to go in to order and check before you leave. The food quality is fine though and it's always hot. I also like Subway but, again, my local is staffed by people who visibly could not give a fuck (not that I blame people in those jobs for that attitude lol), so you kind of have to corral them into doing your order correctly.

It's possible to lick a public toilet seat and not get ill from it, does that make it hygienic then?

There is no distinction between a "person begging" and "beggar". In what scenario would those be two different things?

Ah yeah, I see what you mean

I with you to an extent OP. I always stand up at bus stops and flag down the bus which means that I'm the first in the queue that forms when those who sit down get up. I usually get on first but I always let wheelchairs, pushchairs, old people, pregnant women, etc. go before me.

Exactly this. Also it has lines beneath the "give your reason" which implies they want a written. In my Maths tests, all of the "show your working" sections were blank spaces with no lines.

Is there a reason you need to use an AI for this?

If the guy was talking about alt-codes then I imagine he is using a physical keyboard with a computer.

Hit the nail on the head. UK Reddit has decided that fireworks are bad and therefore anyone who likes them is a heartless savage. The amount of hand wringing I see on this sub about fireworks every Bonfire Night is really ridiculous.

Mate, you gave the guy barely any time to respond to you. And it's not unusual to retain information from sources without remembering what the source is. I can remember reading plenty of articles about things and I could tell you their contents but not where I read them (apart from that it was a source I consider reliable otherwise I wouldn't have trusted the information).