America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

Oh boy, here we go again.

You did it twice within one post:


It's a guilty pleasure rather than "an actual meal", and it's a "meal replacement" (a replacement being something that is not the original item but is used to fill the purpose of that item; words have meanings, folks!)

How do you interpet that as not being a meal at all?? You are behaving like a language police, in stead of actually engaging on the actual discussion. If I replace breakfast cerial with a steakdiner it is still breakfast isnt it? If I replace a normal healthy meal with a fastfood meal its still a meal. I did not state fastfood isnt a meal. I also explained what I meant with an actual meal in other words a balanced healthy meal. This isnt rocket science.

 

[TexRex]

Edit:

Spoiler

Just to clarify, there's not one bird minding its own business but two that are actively engaging.

 

[Famine]

How do you interpet that as not being a meal at all?

It's not interpretation. That's literally what the word "replacement" means when used in this manner.

When you describe something as a "[thing] replacement" or a "replacement [thing]" you are describing it as an item that is not the original but substitutes for it and is less ideal for the task. A bus replacement service isn't a train and a neuticle doesn't make testosterone and sperm. These are things that replace the original and are used as a less capable replacement.

You can also use the word "replacement" to mean an identical item. You break your phone and get a replacement, for example. That's a different context.

You are behaving like a language police, in stead of actually engaging on the actual discussion.

Dude... this is how words work.

If you used the wrong word and it's been pointed out to you, don't kick off for a page and a half, and moan "what are you going on about" at the person who's asked you a question based on the wrong word. Realise the mistake when it's pointed out, suck it up, amend your position and carry on.

If you are communicating the wrong ideas with the wrong words that's your problem. It's literally impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who uses the wrong words, has a tantrum when questioned on it, denies even using them, defends using them, and then finally whines about being asked to use the right ones. And this seems like it's the fifth or sixth time this has happened with you so far this year.

I don't even know why you're having a go at me about it (again), when I was just pointing out to you why what you said lead to the discussion it did because you seemed all confused about it. It's because you used those words, for reference.

If I replace breakfast cerial with a steakdiner it is still breakfast isnt it?

It is, but it's not cereal. Steak would be a cereal replacement - it does the same job (food for energy) at the same time (breakfast), but it doesn't do what cereal does. And this is actually a far better way to see what you did with fast food as "a replacement meal".

I also explained what I meant with an actual meal in other words a balanced healthy meal.

Since when did a meal need to be healthy and balanced to qualify as a meal? Where are you getting this crap?

This isnt rocket science.

No, it's nutrition. Also, apparently, English.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not interpretation. That's literally what the word "replacement" means when used in this manner.

When you describe something as a "[thing] replacement" or a "replacement [thing]" you are describing it as an item that is not the original but substitutes for it and is less ideal for the task. A bus replacement service isn't a train and a neuticle doesn't make testosterone and sperm. These are things that replace the original and are used as a less capable replacement.

You can also use the word "replacement" to mean an identical item. You break your phone and get a replacement, for example. That's a different context.

Dude... this is how words work.

If you used the wrong word and it's been pointed out to you, don't kick off for a page and a half, and moan "what are you going on about" at the person who's asked you a question based on the wrong word. Realise the mistake when it's pointed out, suck it up, amend your position and carry on.

If you are communicating the wrong ideas with the wrong words that's your problem. It's literally impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who uses the wrong words, has a tantrum when questioned on it, denies even using them, defends using them, and then finally whines about being asked to use the right ones. And this seems like it's the fifth or sixth time this has happened with you so far this year.

It is, but it's not cereal. Steak would be a cereal replacement - it does the same job (food for energy) at the same time (breakfast), but it doesn't do what cereal does. And this is actually a far better way to see what you did with fast food as "a replacement meal".

Since when did a meal need to be healthy and balanced? Where are you getting this crap?

No, it's nutrition. Also, apparently, English.

Congratulations on replacing a proper discussion with a discussion about the use of the word "replacement". Perhaps in the future I should replace replacement with subsitution, fill-in or surrogate? Now I know I should not call fastfood a meal replacement or replacement for a meal, because apparantly I am then saying that fastfood isnt a meal. Congratulations on educating me again on proper english. Give yourself a high five and a drink, you absolutely destroyed me with you surperior intellect!

Edit: obviously meant in a non passive- aggressive way.

 

[Danoff]

Not a good replacement for a meal does not mean it isnt a meal at all.

I was trying to figure out what you were talking about when you were saying that fast food wasn't a "meal replacement" and instead was a "guilty pleasure". The implication is that fast food is not nutritious, and I was poking at that assumption because there are many areas where that falls through the cracks. I was also really interested to find out what you think constitutes a "meal" vs. things that do not, because I don't think of that word the same way you do. "A meal" to me has to do with calorie count rather than nutrients, and is differentiated from "a snack" in terms of size alone. The concept of a "meal replacement" is almost entirely foreign to me. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear that is some sort of calorie shake.

These days it's hard to even know what constitutes nutritious, so it's a minefield for using to describe what is a "meal". For example, pizza and hamburgers (which are typically thought of for fast food, which is much wider net than just those items) are not necessarily as bad for you as had once been presumed. A hamburger is actually a pretty balanced meal containing meat, cheese, a veggies. The worst part of a hamburger is (arguably) the bun, but hamburgers come in a lot of varieties, some of which even have sugar on them, so it's hard to just outright say that hamburgers are nutritious.

Hamburgers are also not necessarily fast food, and neither is pizza. In fact, fast food appears to have almost nothing to do with the nutrient content of the food and more to do with the modality of how you get the food. A lot of the poking I've been doing at the language you're using is to get you to think harder about what is nutritious and what "fast food" really is.

It's almost as though fast food is really a description of how the food gets to you and not a description of its nutritional content.

 

[Famine]

Congratulations on replacing a proper discussion with a discussion about the use of the word "replacement". Perhaps in the future I should replace replacement with subsitution, fill-in or surrogate? Now I know I should not call fastfood a meal replacement or replacement for a meal, because apparantly I am then saying that fastfood isnt a meal. Congratulations on educating me again on proper english. Give yourself a high five and a drink, you absolutely destroyed me with you surperior intellect!

That's an interestingly passive-aggressive way of conceding that your initial language use was wrong, apparently somehow blaming me - the second user to bring it to your attention, and only then because you seemed confused that the first user did.

I'll keep an eye out for that card being played again in future.

 

[TexRex]

I was also really interested to find out what you think constitutes a "meal" vs. things that do not, because I don't think of that word the same way you do. "A meal" to me has to do with calorie count rather than nutrients, and is differentiated from "a snack" in terms of size alone.

I'm glad you brought that up, because it's just...like...really ambiguous.

The matter isn't helped when one consumes many (I'm thinking something like 5 to 8) individual "meals" in a day--the daily nutritional and caloric value may be comparable to fewer "meals" but each one accounts for substantially less. What's more, each one may not be "balanced" but instead be tailored to what the body needs at the time of consumption or is going to need following consumption.

The concept of a "meal replacement" is almost entirely foreign to me. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear that is some sort of calorie shake.

Doesn't the thing that's replacing the "meal" then become the "meal"? I've never given the term much thought, but now it's actually starting to kind of piss me off a little bit.

 

[Danoff]

What's more, each one may not be "balanced" but instead be tailored to what the body needs at the time of consumption or is going to need following consumption.

I think this is a key point. You might not need certain items every time you eat, or even every day, and yet they can still be healthy.

If I'm guessing, my guess is that this notion of every day or every meal comes from the documentary "Super Size Me". It's easy to cite that documentary as saying that McDonald's (or whatever fast food) is bad for you. But it requires the intake profile to look something like "every day" or "every meal" to really be used as evidence. So the goalposts get shifted to that. But of course that was one of the issues with Super Size Me being used as more than just an intriguing health experiment - not very much food is healthy for you every single day or every single meal. And that's an odd and arbitrary rule to use.

If anything, nutrition seems to be moving away from the notion of eating the same thing every day or for every meal and emphasizes overall variety. And people are becoming more and more cognizant of daily body chemistry cycles and the effect of certain inputs on that cycle at the particular time that the input is received.

In some ways it's all just so much more complicated than "eat this" and "don't eat that". And yet we still know that soda is junk (but super tasty junk).

 

[TexRex]

And people are becoming more and more cognizant of daily body chemistry cycles and the effect of certain inputs on that cycle at the particular time that the input is received.

And monthly. There are times of the month that I make sure there's a bunch of bananas and a 60% cacao Ghiradelli bar out on the counter.

 

[ryzno]

All I have to say is McDonald's is not good for you 3 meals a days everyday.
When my girl was pregnant we spent 4 days in the hospital. I liked McDonald's till then. I was vomiting and had diarrhea for 2 days after we got back home. I'll still eat the McGriddle or an artisan burger but that's it from them.
I prefer Wendy's and Chick-fil-a now and an occasional BK Bacon King.
Fast-food is my diet cause I'm usually on the road.
My favorite thing when I'm home is a 4 meat pizza from a local pizzeria.

 

[McLaren]

Please don't challenge world view on this issue. In-N-Out is healthy & pure, damn it!

They need to take them fries. Throw them away. And start their recipe from scratch.

Good burger though, esp. for after American drinking standards.

 

[Liquid]

I worked in a McDonald's for 4 years and was eating it an average of 6 times a week with the absolute peak being 10 times a week.

That didn't make me fed up with it so I doubt anything will.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

They need to take them fries. Throw them away. And start their recipe from scratch.

Good burger though, esp. for after American drinking standards.

The answer to the fries is to order them animal style (or just the cheese variant) and eat it with a fork. Otherwise they are pretty forgettable.

 

[TexRex]

The only thing about them that stands out for me is their "secret menu" that accommodates the request to have a full onion slice cooked on the flat top.

If I'm doing In-N-Out, I get double mustard patties without cheese, one grilled slice of onion between the patties, a raw slice of onion, lettuce and chopped peppers beneath, sauced top and bottom. American cheese is...*blecch*...and the tomatoes are always pale and mealy.

I don't eat there often and I couldn't say for sure the last time was less than a decade ago.

Edit: Actually, I can recall one visit about seven years ago.

 

[DDastardly00]

Pelosi is basically saying 'Lock him Up'

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/pelosi-impeachment-1355435

Oh boy 2 years of investigations, nothing to indict on, but hey, let's just lock him up on allegations anyway and throw the entire justice system out the window. All because we hate Trump.

Nancy needs to crap or get off the pot. Begin impeachment procedures immediately or just shut up Nancy, this is beyond stale at this point.

 

[Biggles]

Oh boy 2 years of investigations, nothing to indict on, but hey, let's just lock him up on allegations anyway and throw the entire justice system out the window. All because we hate Trump.

Sounds like the GOP & Hillary. Maybe lock them both up ... in the same cell. 💡 Great idea for new reality TV show. The best ratings!

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sounds like the GOP & Hillary. Maybe lock them both up ... in the same cell. 💡 Great idea for new reality TV show. The best ratings!

Reads more like a 90s sitcom. Still would watch.

Logic time:
So....it's a 'national emergency' that Mexico is allowing migrants through to the US border, and therefore tariffs are necessary to force Mexico's hand to stem the flow....unless they just buy more agricultural products from us and then it's ok?

 

[DDastardly00]

Sounds like the GOP & Hillary. Maybe lock them both up ... in the same cell. 💡 Great idea for new reality TV show. The best ratings!

Lol that would get rough I think, they'd have to peel the Donald's orange skin out from underneath Hillary's talons after about an hour, it would be like a cage match, but with, non-muscular wrinkly people.

 

[TexRex]

Sounds like the GOP & Hillary.

Except it's different because the remarks aren't being directed at Trump in that instance. False equivalency.

So....it's a 'national emergency' that Mexico is allowing migrants through to the US border, and therefore tariffs are necessary to force Mexico's hand to stem the flow....unless they just buy more agricultural products from us and then it's ok?

It's as if it's not really an emergency at all. What about "the murderers and rapists and drug smugglers"? They're okay so long as Mexicans buy more stuff from us?

 

[DDastardly00]

Yeah, no, that is directed squarely at Trump.

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said

 

[TexRex]

Yeah, no, that is directed squarely at Trump.

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said

Yeeeeaaahh...if only it had occurred to me to, A) quote the subject matter, at least as I understood it--which is to say the chants of "lock her up" directed at Hillary and originating from Trump, the GOP and right supremacists, presented to highlight the hyprocisy of someone crying about allusions to locking Trump up on allegations alone--and then, B) use a word ("that") to indicate the subject matter should mere quotation be insufficient. Oh wait...I did.

Now on the off chance that neither were sufficient in indicating the subject matter, we're really only talking about two things--"lock him up" directed at Trump and "lock her up" directed at Hillary--and surely by stating that "the remarks aren't being directed at Trump in that instance", I've left no room for question as to what remarks I was addressing.

Did that clear things up? Good. I can't imagine any additional quibbling over what I said is necessary.

 

[Dogwolf77]

It's not interpretation. That's literally what the word "replacement" means when used in this manner.

When you describe something as a "[thing] replacement" or a "replacement [thing]" you are describing it as an item that is not the original but substitutes for it and is less ideal for the task. A bus replacement service isn't a train and a neuticle doesn't make testosterone and sperm. These are things that replace the original and are used as a less capable replacement.

You can also use the word "replacement" to mean an identical item. You break your phone and get a replacement, for example. That's a different context.

Dude... this is how words work.

If you used the wrong word and it's been pointed out to you, don't kick off for a page and a half, and moan "what are you going on about" at the person who's asked you a question based on the wrong word. Realise the mistake when it's pointed out, suck it up, amend your position and carry on.

If you are communicating the wrong ideas with the wrong words that's your problem. It's literally impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who uses the wrong words, has a tantrum when questioned on it, denies even using them, defends using them, and then finally whines about being asked to use the right ones. And this seems like it's the fifth or sixth time this has happened with you so far this year.

I don't even know why you're having a go at me about it (again), when I was just pointing out to you why what you said lead to the discussion it did because you seemed all confused about it. It's because you used those words, for reference.

It is, but it's not cereal. Steak would be a cereal replacement - it does the same job (food for energy) at the same time (breakfast), but it doesn't do what cereal does. And this is actually a far better way to see what you did with fast food as "a replacement meal".

Since when did a meal need to be healthy and balanced to qualify as a meal? Where are you getting this crap?

No, it's nutrition. Also, apparently, English.

Don’t mean to be a jerk, but is your use of literally correct in this sentence? “It's literally impossible to have a sensible discussion”

 

[TexRex]

Don’t mean to be a jerk, but is your use of literally correct in this sentence? “It's literally impossible to have a sensible discussion”

Yes, in that it's not figuratively "impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who uses the wrong words".

 

[ryzno]

It's as if it's not really an emergency at all.

100K+ people detained in 1 month.
We're(GA) getting ready to house some of said "migrants" at one of our military bases.
Yeah, it's not a problem...

 

[PocketZeven]

I was trying to figure out what you were talking about when you were saying that fast food wasn't a "meal replacement" and instead was a "guilty pleasure". The implication is that fast food is not nutritious, and I was poking at that assumption because there are many areas where that falls through the cracks. I was also really interested to find out what you think constitutes a "meal" vs. things that do not, because I don't think of that word the same way you do. "A meal" to me has to do with calorie count rather than nutrients, and is differentiated from "a snack" in terms of size alone. The concept of a "meal replacement" is almost entirely foreign to me. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear that is some sort of calorie shake.

These days it's hard to even know what constitutes nutritious, so it's a minefield for using to describe what is a "meal". For example, pizza and hamburgers (which are typically thought of for fast food, which is much wider net than just those items) are not necessarily as bad for you as had once been presumed. A hamburger is actually a pretty balanced meal containing meat, cheese, a veggies. The worst part of a hamburger is (arguably) the bun, but hamburgers come in a lot of varieties, some of which even have sugar on them, so it's hard to just outright say that hamburgers are nutritious.

Hamburgers are also not necessarily fast food, and neither is pizza. In fact, fast food appears to have almost nothing to do with the nutrient content of the food and more to do with the modality of how you get the food. A lot of the poking I've been doing at the language you're using is to get you to think harder about what is nutritious and what "fast food" really is.

As I tried to explain I did not use “meal replacement” as its own category, but just as one meal replacing another meal. I did not realize a meal replacement isn’t a meal. As famine pointed out in a somewhat obnoxious way.

You can go in detail which fast food is or is not healthy, but in overall it is considered a category with a lot of processed food. To be clear that we are on the same page I consider fast food chains as fast food. Companies that use processed foods to deliver fast and easy meals. Of course there are healthy option on their menu and not all fast food chains are the same. It isn’t necessarily the actual nutritional value that is unhealthy, but the additional sodium, sugar, artificial ingredients and fat that are unhealthy. A pizza has some nutritional value, but the amount of sugar and fat found in the sauce and cheese of especially fast food chain pizza are not balanced. Too much sugar, fat and sodium is the problem and not the lack of nutritional value.

Edit:

That's an interestingly passive-aggressive way of conceding that your initial language use was wrong, apparently somehow blaming me - the second user to bring it to your attention, and only then because you seemed confused that the first user did.

I'll keep an eye out for that card being played again in future.

Post fixed! See edit in my post.

 

[Famine]

Don’t mean to be a jerk, but is your use of literally correct in this sentence? “It's literally impossible to have a sensible discussion”

Yes, it's literally the purpose of the word "literally".

 

[TenEightyOne]

100K+ people detained in 1 month.

Presumably some of those will form part of the 1million(ish) legal immigrants per year and the remainder will be legally deported? What's wrong with having a detention system in place to establish that? Seems normal to me.

We're(GA) getting ready to house some of said "migrants" at one of our military bases.

Why "said" migrants? Are they migrants or not? What does the word mean? Are you at war with all your bases otherwise engaged? (Disclaimer: you weren't at war when I started writing this. By the end of the post... who knows?)

Yeah, it's not a problem...

Where is the problem?

 

[Dogwolf77]

Yes, it's literally the purpose of the word "literally".

Hehe, I was just busting your chops in fun. I know how worked up you guys get in these discussions.

 

[ryzno]

Where is the problem?

We have more coming in than we can deal with.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We have more coming in than we can deal with.

13 years ago there were about 85,000 a month, a figure which decreased over following years. How have border forces been able to completely forget how to deal with the numbers?