nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 4.0

Zzippy

Thread continued from here

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

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

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

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.

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

[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.

irishbucsfan

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

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

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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!

[Deleted User]

mfceiling wrote: »

Don't have a cow Venjur.

Now you're just splitting hares.

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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!

[Deleted User]

Zzippy

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

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

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.

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.

Dave_The_Sheep

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I've never actually eaten avocado.

Not even guacamole?

Some life just isn't worth living...

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.

Squidgy Black

I've never actually eaten avocado.

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.

Neil3030

stephen_n wrote: »

You do know avocados are no longer PC?

Explain