Off Topic Thread 4.0

molloyjh

That's genuinely hilarious. I had never thought of actually killing 2 birds when using or hearing that phrase before. Now it's exactly what I'm thinking of whenever I hear it. It's been used here before recently I think, but the South Park episode with the bikers springs to mind, where language evolves and the original (and sometimes literal) meaning of words or phrases is consigned to the bin. I mean, how many people have actually used the guinea pig phrase without ever carrying out or even condoning animal testing?

But I suppose seeing as it's becoming the done thing, I'd like to personally make a stand against the phrase "having your cake and eating it too". I mean for starters, who wants a cake without being able to eat it. That seems dumb. But most importantly, that's not even the original phrase. It's "eat your cake and have it too". Which makes far more sense. We need to do away with this anti-sense language once and for all.

Also, it's "at the end of the day" not "in the end of the day".

mfceiling

molloyjh wrote: »

We need to do away with this anti-sense language once and for all.

Also, it's "at the end of the day" not "in the end of the day".

We need to tell these people that if Mars becomes a realistic place to inhabit then they can feel free to head that way.

molloyjh

mfceiling wrote: »

We need to tell these people that if Mars becomes a realistic place to inhabit then they can feel free to head that way.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

,But I suppose seeing as it's becoming the done thing, I'd like to personally make a stand against the phrase "having your cake and eating it too". I mean for starters, who wants a cake without being able to eat it. That seems dumb. But most importantly, that's not even the original phrase. It's "eat your cake and have it too". Which makes far more sense. We need to do away with this anti-sense language once and for all.

How does changing the order and tense clarify the impossible scenario of both eating and being in possession of cake? Having it and eating it is as impossible as it is to eat it and to have it....

Edit - my suggestion would be to move away from the verb "have" entirely, and use something like "store your cake and eat it"

thomond2006

I'll kill all of you.













*Just a metaphor, chillax!

stephen_n

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Yeah but we're spending all our money on avocado instead of buying houses and diamonds apparently.

Although for .ak that probably is true.

You do know avocados are no longer PC?

Neil3030

stephen_n wrote: »

You do know avocados are no longer PC?

Explain

errlloyd

Neil3030 wrote: »

Explain

To ripen avocados on a mass scale requires taking bees captive and using them to fertilize the avocado. Even though an animal isn't consumed in the process, the requirement of a captive animal in the process makes it not vegan.

Squidgy Black

I've never actually eaten avocado.

errlloyd

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I've never actually eaten avocado.

I hadn't until about a 7 months ago. Now I have about 5 per week. They are good.

Dave_The_Sheep

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I've never actually eaten avocado.

Not even guacamole?

Some life just isn't worth living...

Squidgy Black

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Not even guacamole?

Some life just isn't worth living...

Nope, just never bothered trying it. Might splash out and pay the extra euro on my burrito Friday.

stephen_n

Neil3030 wrote: »

Explain

Something about the amount of water it takes to produce them. The fact the Mexican drug cartels are enslaving the farmers to produce them and controlling the market. Something about air miles yada yada anyway they’re no longer pc or hipster ask Molloy.

Zzippy

Best answer I saw to that PETA nonsense. I had a good chuckle...

https://twitter.com/curates_egg/status/1070237470552457217

It's possible Peta are completely self aware about this and go over the top to get people talking. It appears to be working in this instance anyway!

mfceiling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's possible Peta are completely self aware about this and go over the top to get people talking. It appears to be working in this instance anyway!

Don't have a cow Venjur.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

How does changing the order and tense clarify the impossible scenario of both eating and being in possession of cake? Having it and eating it is as impossible as it is to eat it and to have it....

Edit - my suggestion would be to move away from the verb "have" entirely, and use something like "store your cake and eat it"

You know when you’ve just finished eating one of your fav foods and wish you had more? Eating your cake and having it too means finishing that food and still having more to eat. Or in other words not paying the price for enjoying yourself.

Dave_The_Sheep

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Nope, just never bothered trying it. Might splash out and pay the extra euro on my burrito Friday.

Nah, not in a burrito. Half a chopped red onion, chopped flesh of tomato or two, a mashed up avocado or two depending on size, juice of half a lime, salt, pepper, into a blender. Not too runny, not too chunky. Season/balance amount of ingredients to taste.

Get some Doritos or your crisp/chip of choice, and dunk. Nom nom.

mfceiling

mfceiling wrote: »

Don't have a cow Venjur.

Now you're just splitting hares.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I hadn't until about a 7 months ago. Now I have about 5 per week. They are good.

THE BOOM IS ****IN BACK LADS! We’re all going to heaven!

I'm beginning to wonder if cannabis has been quietly legalised or is no being longer enforced against. Walking through town today it was incredibly prevelant on several occasions. Have noticed it in Stephens green before but this was a whole new level of overtness and there are plenty of Guards around with Christmas shopping in full swing.

Squidgy Black

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder if cannabis has been quietly legalised or is no being longer enforced against. Walking through town today it was incredibly prevelant on several occasions. Have noticed it in Stephens green before but this was a whole new level of overtness and there are plenty of Guards around with Christmas shopping in full swing.

No longer being enforced to the extent that the garda won't bother stopping anyone these days or searching if they catch a whiff of it. If you're openly caught rolling a joint or you're pulled over and there's a really strong smell coming from the car then they might search, but a lot of the time they're just letting people go. They'll still ream you if they don't like the look of you though.

I work in Dublin 1, and generally can't step foot outside the office without getting a bang of green, people openly smoking on the quays on my walk home constantly.

NB: Not my personal experience, just things I've been told. By friends.

mfceiling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder if cannabis has been quietly legalised or is no being longer enforced against. Walking through town today it was incredibly prevelant on several occasions. Have noticed it in Stephens green before but this was a whole new level of overtness and there are plenty of Guards around with Christmas shopping in full swing.

I stopped in my local topaz this afternoon and the guy in front of me was stinking off it. He had filled up his van and held the door open for me as I followed him in. Probably not the best poison to be putting into your body when you're driving. And you're definitely right....the bang of it around town is unreal at times.

thegreycity

Neil3030 wrote: »

How does changing the order and tense clarify the impossible scenario of both eating and being in possession of cake? Having it and eating it is as impossible as it is to eat it and to have it....

Edit - my suggestion would be to move away from the verb "have" entirely, and use something like "store your cake and eat it"

Because it's possible to have a cake and then to eat, but it's not possible to eat a cake and then to still have it. The order of the words implies the chronological order of events.

pickarooney

molloyjh wrote: »

You know when you’ve just finished eating one of your fav foods and wish you had more? Eating your cake and having it too means finishing that food and still having more to eat. Or in other words not paying the price for enjoying yourself.

That's... not what it means. Neil is right.
There's no implied chronological order; it's a simultaneous state of being. Schroedinger's cake.

As opposed to Pavlov's pavlova

Squidgy Black

mfceiling wrote: »

I stopped in my local topaz this afternoon and the guy in front of me was stinking off it. He had filled up his van and held the door open for me as I followed him in. Probably not the best poison to be putting into your body when you're driving. And you're definitely right....the bang of it around town is unreal at times.

That pisses me off. It's DUI, I don't see how people who smoke and drive find it acceptable.

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

No longer being enforced to the extent that the garda won't bother stopping anyone these days or searching if they catch a whiff of it. If you're openly caught rolling a joint or you're pulled over and there's a really strong smell coming from the car then they might search, but a lot of the time they're just letting people go. They'll still ream you if they don't like the look of you though.

I work in Dublin 1, and generally can't step foot outside the office without getting a bang of green, people openly smoking on the quays on my walk home constantly.

NB: Not my personal experience, just things I've been told. By friends.

I was really taken aback by how out in the open it was and it wasn't just groups of kids at central bank (is that still a thing) or Stephens green - there was an chap in his 50s who looked fairly respectable and the smell of what he was smoking was unmistakable.

I've no issue with it at all, part of me thinks though that like Alcohol it would be better not entirely out on the street. It's probably moving towards legal but you wouldn't want to see people falling around in public either.

mfceiling wrote: »

I stopped in my local topaz this afternoon and the guy in front of me was stinking off it. He had filled up his van and held the door open for me as I followed him in. Probably not the best poison to be putting into your body when you're driving. And you're definitely right....the bang of it around town is unreal at times.

That's no different to drink driving and needs to be considered as socially unacceptable if it isn't already.

Synode

thegreycity wrote: »

Because it's possible to have a cake and then to eat, but it's not possible to eat a cake and then to still have it. The order of the words implies the chronological order of events.

The saying is have your cake and eat it. Not have your cake then eat it

irishbucsfan

I believe you can have and eat as many cakes as you want because I am sound

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was really taken aback by how out in the open it was and it wasn't just groups of kids at central bank (is that still a thing) or Stephens green - there was an chap in his 50s who looked fairly respectable and the smell of what he was smoking was unmistakable.

I've no issue with it at all, part of me thinks though that like Alcohol it would be better not entirely out on the street. It's probably moving towards legal but you wouldn't want to see people falling around in public either.

Make it legal and only sold from dispensaries, but implement fines for smoking in public.

I think the government are mad to not entertain the idea. It's ridiculously common these days (availability and the price has dropped quite a bit over the last 5-10 years), and it also takes money away from the wrong crowds funding other stuff. Regulate and control. Massive tax return, and a decrease in antisocial behaviour.

With an older generation of Irish people, I've noticed sometimes there's a perception of cannabis to be a gateway drug. In some cases, this is an issue, as you'll always get someone abusing it and chasing bigger highs. But my argument is that a lot of people who've ever sold green has ended up selling more than green because of the profit margins being higher. And it's generally what everyone starts out selling.

And then you've the medical aspect. But that's just my opinion. I respect the counter arguments, that some people will abuse it, and there can people can become dependent if they're using it as a crutch.

b.gud

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Make it legal and only sold from dispensaries, but implement fines for smoking in public.

I think the government are mad to not entertain the idea. It's ridiculously common these days (availability and the price has dropped quite a bit over the last 5-10 years), and it also takes money away from the wrong crowds funding other stuff. Regulate and control. Massive tax return, and a decrease in antisocial behaviour.

With an older generation of Irish people, I've noticed sometimes there's a perception of cannabis to be a gateway drug. In some cases, this is an issue, as you'll always get someone abusing it and chasing bigger highs. But my argument is that a lot of people who've ever sold green has ended up selling more than green because of the profit margins being higher. And it's generally what everyone starts out selling.

And then you've the medical aspect. But that's just my opinion. I respect the counter arguments, that some people will abuse it, and there can people can become dependent if they're using it as a crutch.

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug. I've seen loads of people who are drunk try weed or coke even though when they are sober they won't go near either. The vast majority of people I know who smoked, myself included, never went onto anything stronger.

I think it's crazy, and it doesn't just apply to Ireland, that we all accept drink as a reasonable everyday socially acceptable, when taken in moderation, thing but at the same time look down of weed. At the end of the day they are both drugs that have, at a high level, the same effect on a person.

I should say that apart from the very odd time, maybe once every year or two, smoke anymore but I just think that weed is something that should be seen as the exact same as alcohol by society

Squidgy Black

b.gud wrote: »

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug. I've seen loads of people who are drunk try weed or coke even though when they are sober they won't go near either. The vast majority of people I know who smoked, myself included, never went onto anything stronger.

I think it's crazy, and it doesn't just apply to Ireland, that we all accept drink as a reasonable everyday socially acceptable, when taken in moderation, thing but at the same time look down of weed. At the end of the day they are both drugs that have, at a high level, the same effect on a person.

I should say that apart from the very odd time, maybe once every year or two, smoke anymore but I just think that weed is something that should be seen as the exact same as alcohol by society

Yeah I think it's a daft argument myself, but it's something that always pops up and is one of those things (like other referendums we've had) that will only change when generations pass over.

Ireland is a weird little country sometimes, and can be very stuck in the mud when it comes to social issues.

molloyjh

pickarooney wrote: »

That's... not what it means. Neil is right.
There's no implied chronological order; it's a simultaneous state of being. Schroedinger's cake.

As opposed to Pavlov's pavlova

Are you sure? My understanding is that the original phrase was all about not being able to have it both ways. Once you’ve eaten the cake then it’s gone.

Edit: some incredibly brief googling suggests his interpretation is correct....

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/to-have-your-cake-and-eat-it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

Synode

molloyjh wrote: »

Are you sure? My understanding is that the original phrase was all about not being able to have it both ways. Once you’ve eaten the cake then it’s gone.

That's still what it means. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's one or the other

molloyjh

Synode wrote: »

That's still what it means. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's one or the other

Well yes, but it makes more sense the original way. The modern way suggests getting a cake and not eating it, which is just confusing. Why would you have it if you couldn’t eat it? Why could you not eat a cake that you have? The original order makes it a much clearer statement. Once you’ve eaten it, it is gone. So you can’t still have it after that.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that “in the end of the day” makes no sense at all.

Sabre0001

Somewhat on-topic as it's the rugby forum, but a little off-topic (hopefully) as it's tag rugby related. Playing on fairly slippy pitches, especially with winter showers and absolute downpours, and I have a nasty habit of travelling too fast for my own good. I've skinned myself pretty frequently and looking for ways to avoid it - not the worst injury to get for sure, but would be nice to prevent!

Picked up compression pants and wear a long sleeve t-shirt under jersey. Neither has really helped. Don't really want to go down the knee and elbow pad route How do contact players survive these pitches? Any other options greatly appreciated!

Sabre0001

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Somewhat on-topic as it's the rugby forum, but a little off-topic (hopefully) as it's tag rugby related. Playing on fairly slippy pitches, especially with winter showers and absolute downpours, and I have a nasty habit of travelling too fast for my own good. I've skinned myself pretty frequently and looking for ways to avoid it - not the worst injury to get for sure, but would be nice to prevent!

Picked up compression pants and wear a long sleeve t-shirt under jersey. Neither has really helped. Don't really want to go down the knee and elbow pad route How do contact players survive these pitches? Any other options greatly appreciated!

Cover yourself in Vaseline.

No idea how to solve the rugby issue though.

b.gud

b.gud wrote: »

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug. I've seen loads of people who are drunk try weed or coke even though when they are sober they won't go near either. The vast majority of people I know who smoked, myself included, never went onto anything stronger.

I think it's crazy, and it doesn't just apply to Ireland, that we all accept drink as a reasonable everyday socially acceptable, when taken in moderation, thing but at the same time look down of weed. At the end of the day they are both drugs that have, at a high level, the same effect on a person.

I should say that apart from the very odd time, maybe once every year or two, smoke anymore but I just think that weed is something that should be seen as the exact same as alcohol by society

I read an interesting article last year in I think rolling stone magazine about the whole 'gateway' idea with cannabis.

During the Reagan years they were looking much more directly at drugs, but they never treated alcohol as a drug and didn't include it in their statistics.

They found that kids who smoked pot went onto harder drugs more commonly than people who didn't - hence the term 'gateway' drug came about.

Because of the way they looked at figures, they didn't realise that alcohol was almost always the starting point. The vast majority of kids who smoked - started with drink and went from there. Ultimately the common denominator was publicly blamed on cannabis, but poverty, mental health and social / family issues were the main culprit and the kids were just getting their hands on what ever was available.

As alcohol was the first available thing (usually at home) it was what they started with. Cannabis was the next most available and so on.

So alcohol has always been the 'gateway' drug, but it's a false positive because it's always been factors that have driven people to substances.

Yeah_Right

Didn't the Unabomber get caught due to eating cake and having it too?

The gateway drug argument is BS. Well certainly in my case. I just like drugs

stephen_n

Petrol and Tipex thiners were my gateway drugs, ban em I say... no oh wait...

errlloyd

b.gud wrote: »

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug.

My biggest pet peeve with the drugs debate is that people always compare other drugs to alcohol and say "well that is legal". It's a crap argument because the world would probably be a better (though unrecognisable place) without alcohol.

The only argument that Weed is a gateway drug is that oftentimes the same guy who sells you weed (or at least sells weed to the guy who sells you weed), upsells the other harder drugs. Take it into dispensaries and problem solved.

A friend of mine got diagnosed with Esophageal cancer recently, which is really not good news for those of you who know it. A doctor quietly recommended that Cannabis Oil is beginning to be observed doing great things, and sort of said to try get some hands on some. I'd hate it if Ireland fell behind on medicine because "medicinal cannabis" is somehow scarier than calling morphine "medicinal heroin".

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

My biggest pet peeve with the drugs debate is that people always compare other drugs to alcohol and say "well that is legal". It's a crap argument because the world would probably be a better (though unrecognisable place) without alcohol.

Agreed. I find the comparison to alcohol a complete red herring. If alcohol was discovered today, there's no way it would be legalised. It's addictive and can cause massive health damage and social issues. The idea that weed should be legal because alcohol is, holds no real sense.

If anything, it should be a case of alcohol should be illegal because weed is.

With that said, there's a significant swing towards social acceptance of weed. Personally, I would be all for it and allowing a controlled, legal consumption of weed which could generate economic benefits. But if that came to pass, I'd only want it if it was viewed in the same social scope as alcohol is currently i.e. it is not to be consumed in public, smoking and driving is deemed socially and legally reprehensible (not uncommon whatsoever at the moment) and it can only be sold by adequately licensed outlets in responsible quantities.

Squidgy Black

Zero point in comparing it to alcohol, when we've huge societal issues when it comes to alcohol and in a lot of cases destroys lives and families. If anything it hurts the argument for legalisation.

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

Agreed. I find the comparison to alcohol a complete red herring. If alcohol was discovered today, there's no way it would be legalised. It's addictive and can cause massive health damage and social issues. The idea that weed should be legal because alcohol is, holds no real sense.

If anything, it should be a case of alcohol should be illegal because weed is.

With that said, there's a significant swing towards social acceptance of weed. Personally, I would be all for it and allowing a controlled, legal consumption of weed which could generate economic benefits. But if that came to pass, I'd only want it if it was viewed in the same social scope as alcohol is currently i.e. it is not to be consumed in public, smoking and driving is deemed socially and legally reprehensible (not uncommon whatsoever at the moment) and it can only be sold by adequately licensed outlets in responsible quantities.

Alcohol is legal and it proves prohibition is a failure, it doesn’t work and just creates more social problems, by criminalizing the supply chain. The same is true for all drugs, but seemingly delusion and denial are the way to go politically.

thomond2006

https://twitter.com/MiamiDolphins/status/1071874769333567488

This just happened in the NFL.

Squidgy Black

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiamiDolphins/status/1071874769333567488

This just happened in the NFL.

Fairly funny that they put Gronk out to try stop the hail mary and in the end it was his defending that led to the Dolphins getting in the end zone.

Pats certainly aren't the team they were last season.

Buer

Texans blew it at home so not much actually changes for them. They'll still go to Kansas for the Championship game after winning in Boston.

If the Texans had won, it would have been big.

troyzer

My Broncos are still in this, that's all that matters.

They should be able to win out, they just need a bit of help from the teams ahead of them in the wild card chase

dregin

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiamiDolphins/status/1071874769333567488

This just happened in the NFL.

They tried to play rugby? Why not just watch the real thing?