MovieChat Forums > Abed303 > Replies
Abed303's Replies
I completely agree, the kid should have been expelled on top of that too. The same goes for the little brat who jumped in and sucker punched the teacher in the back.
You are so incredibly stupid. I'll leave it at that.
Poisoning the well fallacy involves attacking a person before they've made their argument. If the attack happens after the argument is made It would be ad hominem: abusive.
Accusing someone of being evil in response to their argument is ad hominem: abusive, when an arguer attacks an opposing arguer by verbally abusing that person.
Trying to lump someone into a group could be ad hominem: circumstantial, where an arguer alludes to circumstances affecting a person that predisposes them to argue in a certain way. If the goal of the association is to attack the character of the person though, it's still ad hominem: abusive.
The last form of ad hominem is tu quoque, where an arguer attempts to show that an opposing arguer is a hypocrite in some way.
All of these, including poisoning the well, are fallacies of relevance, where an argument's premise is logically irrelevant its conclusion.
Rowling might have not made casting decisions (maybe she did, I don't know either), but I think it's safe to say that without her books Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson would not be household names. They owe their level of fame and financial success to the fact they were cast in that franchise.
He's either trolling or, like you said, terminally stupid. I just hope, for his sake, that he's trolling.
A warped pot or pan that doesn't sit flat will absolutely not work on induction. Even if there's enough contact to activate the coil, it will heat wildly unevenly. I'm speaking from extensive personal experience. It's not bullshit, it's a fact. I also never said that cast iron doesn't work with induction. Do you have issues with reading comprehension?
You don't need to be in a commercial kitchen to have good ventilation. I have a hood in my home kitchen. I'm willing to bet you do too. They're highly effective. Like I said, I've never heard of anyone in a kitchen developing health issues from exposure to a gas stove. I'm not arguing that there are no health risks associated with gas stoves, only that they're being greatly embellished all of a sudden. If someone uses a range without turning on their hood, it's being operated incorrectly and you increase risks because of it. If you drive a car without your seat belt, same thing. Americans have about a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car crash during their lifetime. Do you still use cars?
Hell, I even know a few people that suffer from baker's lung. It's a problem in the industry, should we ban baking? Should we ban bread? Of course not. Should protection be worn during certain stages of bread production? Yes.
Yes I prefer gas, for reasons that I already stated. I'm not talking out of my ass, you're the one talking out of your ass. You said switching to electric was a win for cooking; you're wrong. You've yet to provide any support for that claim, the one that YOU made. Sure there are benefits in energy efficiency and the environment by switching to electric, but that's not what I was refuting. I'm not arguing that gas should be used in perpetuity either. I only said that there are real benefits to cooking with gas and banning gas is a much later step in a long, long list of environmental changes. Eventually, I'm sure that gas will be phased out, I don't have a problem with that at all.
Induction is a form of electric heat. It uses electricity to create a magnetic field that rapidly oscillates polarity and heats the cookware through friction. Induction will not work on aluminum or copper cookware, another disadvantage. If the cookware is slightly warped it's useless on an induction top. All cookware, aside from cast iron will warp over time and cast iron has its own set of disadvantages, such as heating time, weight, and required care. If you don't understand the advantages of gas I suspect you have very little experience cooking, beyond feeding yourself.
I work in the industry. I have absolutely ZERO first, second, or even third hand experience with health problems stemming from exposure to a gas range. I'm talking about people that cook for 40+ hours per week for years. Someone at home cooking once or twice a day using their range for a couple hours is a drop in the bucket. You're more at risk for breathing carbon monoxide by walking down a city sidewalk than cooking your meals. Many of the other air pollutants caused by cooking stems from the heating of fats and oils; those risks are still present when cooking with electric. Anyone cooking on any range should have the hood turned on, which is highly effective.
I've offered numerous advantages of gas over electric. The only support to your claim that you provided was that heat flows around the cookware with gas, something that I pointed out is actually advantageous in many instances. So how is cooking improved through the switch to electric?
I'm confused, do you find the character annoying or the actor's portrayal?
I agree, and a cosmic baby is a perfect description of the character. It's been ages since I've watched TNG but weren't his antics the reason the other Q kicked him out for that one episode? Even his own people found him unbearably annoying.
You were the one who stated that the switch to electric would be a big win for cooking. Claiming that evidence refuting your statement isn’t critical or important seems rather silly to me. It’s no coincidence that chefs prefer to cook with gas. Gas offers better responsiveness and control, use of a wider variety of cookware, and a wider variety of cooking methods. Maybe that’s unimportant to you, but you brought it up. It’s not unimportant to an entire industry of people that make a living cooking for others, that overwhelmingly prefer gas. I’m sorry, but it’s not a win for cooking at all.
You also made the point that it’s great “now that we have electric induction stoves to get rid of the massive expensive gas infrastructures in cities”. You said that; it was your point. I stated that the electrical grid should be invested in long before any proposed bans on gas, it was the crux of my argument. You seem to be supporting this in your long-winded and pedantic reply.
All of that heat that goes around the cookware is often advantageous. Induction often leaves the sides of a pot considerably cooler than the bottom, which can be problematic depending on what is being cooked. Also, if your pan or pot isn't perfectly flat then it will not work on an induction top. Since pots and pans expand and contract during the cooking process, minor warping that would be inconsequential on a gas range would leave them useless on an induction top.
Also, homes that have gas stoves often have gas heat. If the aim is to get rid of gas infrastructure, like you stated, the electrical grid will need to be robust enough to handle heating the homes as well. You also have to consider the additional strain on the grid that electric cars create as they become more widely used. The U.S. has an aging electrical grid that will require massive investment; that should happen long before any proposed bans on gas.
In terms of cost, you'd be forcing consumers to buy new stoves, new home heating units, cloths dryers, maybe new cookware. Then you have to consider how much more it costs to heat a home with electric over gas. You also have to consider the waste created from trowing away all of those perfectly fine appliances in the name of "progress". It's a nice idea to be safer and more efficient with our energy use, but one step at a time.
I seriously doubt that he'll retire, unless he wins another super bowl. He torpedoed his marriage to keep playing. It doesn't make sense to retire again after just one more season. I think he'll keep playing until he wins another super bowl or he becomes too ineffective for any contending team to consider him.
You're being facetious, but it's really not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him in anyway; womanizing, drug abuse, and getting rich from backroom deals simply because of who his father is are all terrible. I think abandoning your own child is a whole new level of moral depravity. Even more so because he has ample resources to easily support his daughter.
And if he's too much of a coward to handle such a responsibility, I find it just as terrible that Joe Biden wouldn't intervene and support his granddaughter. Evidently Joe is just as much a morally depraved coward as his son.
Abandoning your child is not small potatoes.
You're spot on about Army of One. I don't think another actor could have pulled that off. The knife throwing scene was absolutely amazing.
Good point, I hadn't considered that. I still think Freeze should have some extra years on him though.
I think Daniel Craig would make a great Freeze, but I don't see him taking the role. I think Adam Driver is too young. Bryan Cranston, Ralph Fiennes, or Mads Mikkelsen would all fit the role well.
I couldn’t agree more with the OP on this. The child was conceived when Hunter cheated on his late brother’s widow… disgusting. The article also stated that the child remains estranged from the Biden family. So the entire Biden family is treating Hunter’s DAUGHTER like a political liability instead of a human being.
I hope she gets as much money from them as possible, as it seems that’s the only thing she can ever hope to get from anyone in the Biden family. Now Hunter is trying to deny her his name while also trying to reduce his financial obligations to the child. What a complete disgrace.
All of the guests were complicit by the end too. They were saying "thank you" and "we love you chef" along with the staff when Slowik explained that everyone would burn. Jeremy was clearly struggling and troubled before he killed himself. He was the only staff member who showed any doubt.