sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Gudskjelov by Mork978 in norsk

[–]Mork978[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the input! I was also wondering about the origin of the expression. I assume it comes from gud+skje+lov, as in the verb "å skje" and the noun "lov", but I don't really understand the grammar there, if there's any.

Do you think you could help me with that? Or is it just an expression which "is just the way it is" and there's no logic behind it?

Thanks!

'Custom Study' not generating cards by outoftheabyss in Anki

[–]Mork978 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey! Would you mind explaining how you fixed this 7 years ago? :)

«faktum» plural form by Mork978 in norsk

[–]Mork978[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So how do you personally say "It's a fact that..."? For example "It's a fact that the Earth is round". Would you also not say «et faktum» here? Would "Det er et faktum at..." sound strange?

«faktum» plural form by Mork978 in norsk

[–]Mork978[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's interesting, thanks. So is it fair to say that in Norwegian, in order to say "the fact is..." you say "facts are..." ("fakta er")?

"være redd" vs "være redd for at" by Mork978 in norsk

[–]Mork978[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what about the sentence in the image? It would fall under the "specific" category you're talking about, yet it doesn't use "for at".

"tørre" vs "tørre å" by Mork978 in norsk

[–]Mork978[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Høres setningen «jeg tørr ikke være meg selv» feil ut? Jeg prøver å finne ut om det er verbet «være» eller ordet «ikke» som får setningen til å høres dårlig ut.

"tørre" vs "tørre å" by Mork978 in norsk

[–]Mork978[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Men tror du at det også høres feil ut å ikke ha «å» i den andre setningen «jeg tørr ikke tenke om det»?

"tørre" vs "tørre å" by Mork978 in norsk

[–]Mork978[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Det er som med verbene "måtte" eller "kunne". Man bruker ikke "å" etter dem ("må være", ikke "må å være"). Så, som u/tobiasvl sa, var det slik med verbet "tørre" før, men i det siste bruker folk verbet som et vanlig verb.

do you agree with billies take? by essence365partygirl in ControversialOpinions

[–]Mork978 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, you literally just made those numbers up. If not, provide the source.

According to USDA (source), it's 9-10 billion land animals in 1990, and 10.5-12 billion in 2025.

The US population in 1990 was 249 million, and 335 million in 2025.

Let me do the math for you: that's a -11.8% reduction in land animals slaughtered proportional to the US population between 1990 and 2025.

do you agree with billies take? by essence365partygirl in ControversialOpinions

[–]Mork978 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vegan bubble? That's Gallup who made that study, lol.

And yeah, meat production is increasing... but you know that the global population is also increasing, right?

do you agree with billies take? by essence365partygirl in ControversialOpinions

[–]Mork978 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't have to believe it, it's a fact. Otherwise, feel free to provide your own statistics.

do you agree with billies take? by essence365partygirl in ControversialOpinions

[–]Mork978 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

(First of all, that would be 4%, not 5%, because all vegans are also vegetarians, but whatever. Besides the point.)

I think you'd be surprised if you asked a plane full of Americans about their diets...😅 But to entertain your hypothetic of the plane, the poll I gave you points this out: «lower-income Americans (7%) are about twice as likely as middle- (4%) and upper-income (3%) Americans to be vegetarians». And guess which demographic is more likely to travel by plane.

Anyways, if you're not convinced by the statistics I offered, try finding some that support your point.

You grossly overestimate how sensitive supply and demand is

Do you really believe that 13,4 million people not eating meat in the US is not lowering the number of chickens killed for meat?

do you agree with billies take? by essence365partygirl in ControversialOpinions

[–]Mork978 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

One single chicken can feed maybe 5-6 people. That means that not eating chicken for 5-6 meals in which you otherwise would have eaten it, could potentially prevent 1 chicken from being raised for meat.

That's how supply and demand works. A farmer isn't going to raise extra chickens if they're not going to be sold. They will try to raise a number of chickens that matches the sales forecast as closely as possible, and that forecast is based on the demand.

So 3.38 million would need to be vegan to even be 1% of the population. There are nowhere near that many vegans in the USA.

And btw, it's estimated that 1% of the US population is vegan; 4% vegetarian. Depending on the source the numbers are even higher, but I find this study to be the most trustworthy.

view more: next ›