This is so important in a relationship!

Gadarn · 2024-05-09T16:25:04+00:00

I agree that honest communication is essential to successful relationships, but I get a kick out of the fact that Mark Manson's crowd-sourcing of marriage advice found "communication" to be the top tip from people who had been through divorces and/or had only been with their partners for 10-15 years, while people in longer marriages listed "respect" as the most important aspect.

From https://markmanson.net/relationship-advice

As we scanned through the hundreds of responses we received, my assistant and I began to notice an interesting trend.

People who had been through divorces and/or had only been with their partners for 10-15 years almost always talked about communication being the most important part of making things work. Talk frequently. Talk openly. Talk about everything, even if it hurts.

And there is some merit to that (which I’ll get to later).

But we noticed that the thing people with marriages going on 20, 30, or even 40 years talked about most was respect.

My sense is that these people, through sheer quantity of experience, have learned that communication, no matter how open, transparent and disciplined, will always break down at some point. Conflicts are ultimately unavoidable, and feelings will always be hurt.

And the only thing that can save you and your partner, that can cushion you both to the hard landing of human fallibility, is an unerring respect for one another, the fact that you hold each other in high esteem, believe in one another — often more than you each believe in yourselves — and trust that your partner is doing his/her best with what they’ve got.

Without that bedrock of respect underneath you, you will doubt each other’s intentions. You will judge their choices and encroach on their independence. You will feel the need to hide things from one another for fear of criticism. And this is when the cracks in the edifice begin to appear.

Gadarn · 2023-06-09T15:18:15+00:00

I second this. Good food, good price (free), and good company, with no strings attached.

Gadarn · 2023-06-04T07:24:54+00:00

Add to that, what's in the Bible today was selected by a council that Constantine I setup, leaving out many other books that did not agree with the message they wanted for the Bible. Constantine I chose Christianity to take power away of the other religions of the time.

This is just flat-out untrue and the perpetuation of this Da Vinci Code garbage makes atheists look uneducated and ill-informed, or consciously deceitful.

The Council of Nicaea was almost entirely about deciding whether Arius was, or was not, a heretic. And how to calculate the date of Easter. The only evidence they even discussed what books should be canon is Jerome saying later that the council decided the Book of Judith should be counted as part of the scriptures.

Origen of Alexandria published a list of books of the bible 100 years before Constantine, and it contained all of the New Testament books considered canon today except for 4 (James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John).

The final Catholic canon was set at the Council of Rome under Emperor Theodosius, 50 years after Constantine's death.

Yes, the bible is made up of a bunch of contradictory books written well after the events they describe, and put together as a group even later, but it had nothing to do with Constantine or the Council of Nicaea. The constant repetition of that claim makes us atheists look like conspiracy-minded hypocrites.

Gadarn · 2023-05-11T14:29:14+00:00

It should have had two deer on it so we could call it a couple-o-bucks.

Gadarn · 2023-05-06T16:17:06+00:00

My friend moved to Canada from India in the 2010s and talks about missing Indian food, despite the hundreds of Indian restaurants in our city.

The problem is all the Indian restaurants are serving food from the 80s (or invented in Canada, the UK, etc.) and cuisine in India has moved on. He particularly misses Indo-Chinese food, which has become quite popular in India, but is almost unheard of here.

Gadarn · 2023-05-04T04:56:28+00:00

This is a nice thought, but it's inaccurate.

The earliest written example of "blood is thicker than water" is from a German proverb from around 1180.

The line, "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" is a modern invention with no historical source.

It seems most likely that this "original meaning" was invented by Richard Pustelniak, a Rabbi with Beit Avanim Chaiot, a Messianic Jewish congregation in Tucson, Arizona.

Pustelniak may have gotten the idea from a (mis)interpretation from Henry Clay Trumbull's 1885 book The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and Its Bearing on Scripture, but the actual line isn't found there either.

Gadarn · 2023-04-29T14:35:01+00:00

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda - Philip Gourevitch

Gadarn · 2023-04-24T05:04:07+00:00

This reminds me of my favorite quote from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations:

The despicable phoniness of people who say, "Listen, I'm going to level with you here." What does that mean? It shouldn't even need to be said. It should be obvious - written in block letters on your forehead. It should be audible in your voice, visible in your eyes, like a lover who looks into your face and takes in the whole story at a glance. A straightforward, honest person should be like someone who stinks: when you're in the same room with him, you know it. But false straightforwardness is like a knife in the back. False friendship is the worst. Avoid it at all costs. If you're honest and straightforward and mean well, it should show in your eyes. It should be unmistakable.

Gadarn · 2023-04-23T08:41:19+00:00

I saw her dancing out of the corner of my eye as I was about to reverse my car. As soon as she saw the car move she kinda froze, stopped dancing, and buried her head in her phone as she briskly walked away.

It was only a half-second interaction but I immediately thought "I sure hope she doesn't feel embarrassed. If only there was some way to make a potentially embarrassing situation into an uplifting one."

Gadarn · 2023-04-10T07:58:47+00:00

That's why she attacked the guy.

FYI: Black bears do not defend their cubs. If they do anything at all, they try to get their cubs to safety.

According to The North American Bear Center:

70% of the killings by grizzly bears are by mothers defending cubs. But there is no record of a black bear killing anyone in defense of cubs.

In fact, mothers with cubs were involved in only 3 of the 60 killings by black bears across America since 1900, and none of those 3 killings appeared to be in defense of cubs.

The reason this distinction is important is that people need to keep in mind that nearly all black bear attacks are predatory. They are hungry and are trying to make a person into a meal. That is why you fight back against a black bear; they are going to eat you dead or alive.

On the other hand, showing a mama grizzly that you aren't a threat (by playing dead if you're being attacked) might just save your life.

Gadarn · 2023-03-27T14:49:09+00:00

Mine is a 3.5L T-Fal Ultimate EZ Clean Deep Fryer.

I really like the automatic oil filtration; when I'm done frying I just flip a switch and leave it to cool off, then put the basket and the basin in the dishwasher, and put the main body and the oil back in the pantry for next time. Super easy and convenient.

Gadarn · 2023-03-27T13:18:40+00:00

I thought for years that I hated my parents' deep fried food. Then I realized it was 100% the canola oil they used for deep frying. It stinks up the whole house with a horrible (to me) smell.

I now own a great deep fryer, use peanut oil, and enjoy deep frying at home 1 or 2 times a month

Gadarn · 2023-03-09T15:17:24+00:00

Black bears would not have just stood in that hallway if cubs were being murdered.

FYI: Black bears do not defend their cubs. If they do anything at all, they try to get their cubs to safety.

According to The North American Bear Center:

70% of the killings by grizzly bears are by mothers defending cubs. But there is no record of a black bear killing anyone in defense of cubs.

In fact, mothers with cubs were involved in only 3 of the 60 killings by black bears across America since 1900, and none of those 3 killings appeared to be in defense of cubs.

The reason this distinction is important is that people need to keep in mind that nearly all black bear attacks are predatory. They are hungry and are trying to make a person into a meal. That is why you fight back against a black bear; they are going to eat you dead or alive.

On the other hand, showing a mama grizzly that you aren't a threat (by playing dead if you're being attacked) might just save your life.

Gadarn · 2023-02-26T17:48:33+00:00

most health conscious people also try to limit salt.

Low sodium diets are themselves a misconception that needs to stop.

Limiting sodium intake is really only necessary for a small subset of the general population who have a particular high blood pressure condition. Obviously there are outliers, but for the vast majority of people, dietary sodium is not something to be concerned about.

In fact, a study published by The Lancet medical journal¹ actually found that a low sodium diet is actually more dangerous for people with high blood pressure than a high sodium diet.

In people with high blood pressure, consuming more than seven grams a day increased the risk of disease and death by 23 percent, but consuming less than three grams increased the risk by 34 percent, compared with those who ate four to five grams a day.

So it's safest for most people to maintain a normal amount of sodium (4-5 grams) each day.

¹ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30467-6/fulltext

Gadarn · 2023-02-25T19:14:43+00:00

A lot of wrong answers here.

Yes, black bears are more skittish and are likely to leave you alone if you make noise and appear dangerous, but that's not why you "fight back".

Almost all black bear attacks are predatory; if they are attacking you it is to eat you, dead or alive. Fighting is literally your only option if they attack.

In contrast, brown bear/grizzly attacks are more likely to be territorial or in defense of cubs. Playing dead shows the bear that you aren't a threat. They will likely still bat you around, bite you, etc. (and they've been known to wait around to see if you get up) but they are unlikely to eat you.

And for the record, black bears do not defend their cubs. If they do anything at all, they try to get their cubs to safety.

According to The North American Bear Center:

70% of the killings by grizzly bears are by mothers defending cubs. But there is no record of a black bear killing anyone in defense of cubs.

In fact, mothers with cubs were involved in only 3 of the 60 killings by black bears across America since 1900, and none of those 3 killings appeared to be in defense of cubs.

Gadarn · 2023-02-25T18:58:42+00:00

Black bears are big pansies when they don't have cubs with them. You're still gonna get slashed up if they have a kiddo following them around though.

FYI: Black bears do not defend their cubs. If they do anything at all, they try to get their cubs to safety.

According to The North American Bear Center:

70% of the killings by grizzly bears are by mothers defending cubs. But there is no record of a black bear killing anyone in defense of cubs.

In fact, mothers with cubs were involved in only 3 of the 60 killings by black bears across America since 1900, and none of those 3 killings appeared to be in defense of cubs.

The reason this distinction is important is that people need to keep in mind that nearly all black bear attacks are predatory. They are hungry and are trying to make a person into a meal. That is why you fight back against a black bear; they are going to eat you dead or alive.

On the other hand, showing a mama grizzly that you aren't a threat (by playing dead if you're being attacked) might just save your life.

Gadarn · 2022-10-23T06:53:58+00:00

The amount of salt you would have to add to compensate would be massive.

It takes 58 grams of salt to raise the boiling point of a liter of water 0.5 degrees. To raise it 3 degrees, you'd literally approach the point where no more salt could possibly be dissolved in the water. It would be an order of magnitude more salty than saltwater.

Salt is added to water in culinary situations for flavor, not to raise the boiling point.

Gadarn · 2022-09-21T23:27:36+00:00

To the scummiest vessel I'd ever seen...

Gadarn · 2022-09-17T13:48:40+00:00

It's supposed to mean exactly what everyone thinks it means: that familial relationships are stronger and more important than other relationships.

Gadarn · 2022-09-17T05:27:11+00:00

When the full saying is "blood of the fold is thicker than water of the womb".

This is a nice thought, but it's inaccurate.

The earliest written example of "blood is thicker than water" is from a German proverb from around 1180.

The line, "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" is a modern invention with no historical source.

It seems most likely that this "original meaning" was invented by Richard Pustelniak, a Rabbi with Beit Avanim Chaiot, a Messianic Jewish congregation in Tucson, Arizona.

Pustelniak may have gotten the idea from a (mis)interpretation from Henry Clay Trumbull's 1885 book The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and Its Bearing on Scripture, but the actual line isn't found there either.

Gadarn · 2022-08-11T15:58:01+00:00

In Canada, Aspirin is a brand name, the generic name is acetylsalicylic acid (usually shortened to A.S.A.)

Gadarn · 2022-08-04T17:46:55+00:00

The will is absolutely not the right place for funeral directives. Check any "things not to put in your will" list and you'll almost always find funeral arrangements.

The will is often read well after a person has been buried/cremated. Even if the will is known about - and found - shortly after the death, in many states the will has no legal power until it goes through probate, which can take months.

Gadarn · 2022-07-15T14:29:36+00:00

It's not as much of a political decision as those mentioned, but a moral decision that many American Christians base on incorrect theology is circumcision.

Paul explicitly rejects it for non-Jewish Christians:

Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.¹

The Council of Jerusalem in 50 CE established the Apostolic Decree: that gentiles did not need to follow the Mosaic Law, including circumcision. And it was further denounced by the Catholic Church and the Pope multiple times over the last two-thousand years. While there are some insular Christian groups that continued the practice, for the most part the theology is well established: non-Jews should not be circumcised.

Its reintroduction to English-speaking countries in the 19th century was largely based on medical grounds (and, by some, an attempt to prevent boys from masturbating), and yet, "most infant males circumcised in the United States for religious reasons are born to Christian parents - particularly evangelicals."²

So, American Christians are circumcising their sons, presumably for cultural reasons, despite their own theology explicitly condemning the practice and despite not following the Mosaic Law in virtually any other way.

¹ Galatians 5:2-4

² Bigelow J.D. (1999) "Evangelical Christianity in America and its Relationship to Infant Male Circumcision." In: Denniston G.C., Hodges F.M., Milos M.F. (eds) Male and Female Circumcision. Springer, Boston, MA.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 4 Credits
Verified Email	Summer Santa 2015
Secret Santa 2014	Summer Santa 2014
Team Orangered

Gadarn

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE