SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225

I do, although to be honest I have never thought to keep them for that purpose. I just throw them out immediately. It's a good idea, though, and one I will probably start implementing. The paraffin wax cubes I currently use to light my chimney starter are not super expensive, but free is even better.
I didn't know that one, I'll try it out. But my overall point was just that you need to use something to get the chimney starter going, and that something (probably) coats you money. Using oil and paper towels is cheap, but so is lighter fluid. So my guess is that no matter what method you use to light coals, it'll be similar in costs.
I think @WandererintheWilderness is correct on this point. For example, I have a friend who wore a dress for Halloween one year. He doesn't have some weird fetish or lead a sexualized lifestyle, he just did it for a lark. Or for another example, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wore dresses to the Oscars the year they got nominated, because they thought it was funny as hell to throw people for a loop as they pointedly refused to answer questions about why they did it. So crossdressing isn't inherently sexualized. But it is certainly true (imo) that the typical example of crossdressing is sexual in some way.
For instance, do you always throw your marinade out once you're done with the meat?
Yes, and honestly I don't feel bad about it because it was just there to flavor the meat. It did its job, no need to keep it around.
And let's say that my marinade is 100% acid. How long is it safe to leave the meat marinating in it? How about 50%? I know that meat gets mealy if you marinate too long, but I don't know how long it needs to get an effect at all.
Marinating is something where you will generally want to spend hours to get any effect. When I do jerk chicken, I marinate overnight. It's perfectly safe as far as I'm aware and I've never had negative results.
Also, I can see clearly that I'll need to order a couple thermometers to do grilling correctly.
You don't need to (lots of cooks have made great meals without thermometers), but they can be helpful for sure. I highly recommend Thermapens. They read temperature near instantly, and they hold up to use very well. They are on the pricy side but I find that worth it for a tool you'll have for a long time to come.
Also if you get into smoking, consider getting a remote probe setup. Ideally it would have at least two probes (one for the meat and one to clip to the grill surface), and the remote will let you monitor the temperature from anywhere in your house. That way you can kick back and relax with (insert beverage of choice here), which is really the best part of smoking meat.
I do not possess lighter fluid. I figured even if it was true that lighter fluid burned off before it got on the food, a charcoal chimney would probably be cheaper over a long period of time because you do not have to buy fluid continuously.
I would think that this is a wash, because you still need something to ignite the coals when you use a chimney starter (just throwing a match in there doesn't cut it in my experience). I use paraffin wax cubes for that purpose, which means I'm still buying consumable stuff to get the coals going. Newspaper does work, so if you have it sitting around you can always use that at no marginal cost to yourself. I just don't have anything like that.
I suspect that a 14" tabletop grill is going to be too small to do two zone cooking, but I certainly could be wrong. I don't have direct experience with those.
As far as food prep goes, it depends on the specific thing I'm cooking. I do use a marinade for making jerk chicken, and something like a marinade for salmon (I cover the fillets with a mixture of brown sugar and Dijon mustard, them cook them indirectly). For burgers and steaks, I just do salt and pepper as a rule. For brats I do nothing at all - they are seasoned enough already that you don't need to add more, and I'm not a beer brat kind of man (though many people do like that).
When I was learning how to grill, I found that brats are surprisingly tricky to cook. This was where I learned the importance of temp control, because I was turning out brats that were blackened on the outside but were raw inside. Even now I probably don't do an amazing job (I think that I have a tendency to overcook them so they come out dry), but at least they aren't raw. You might find them easier, but just something to look out for.
Steaks, by comparison, are trivial! Which is good because they are expensive as you said. Salt and pepper, maybe a seasoning mix, and then you cook them like 3-4 minutes per side. And if you really want to be thorough, you can use a thermometer to temp them, though I generally don't bother.
Another thing which is really good is grilled corn. I've done a couple of different methods, but the one I have found I prefer is to peel back the husk (don't remove it), take the silk out, and then put the husk back. Then you soak the ears of corn in water for a long while (I do overnight), and cook them directly over the coals, turning the ears every now and then, until the husk is dried out and brown/black on all sides. The corn inside should be perfectly cooked and it's delicious (with the usual salt and butter of course).
Indeed, there is a whole Chris Rock bit from the 90s where he talks about "there's black people, and there's niggas. And niggas have got to go". Anecdotally, I would say that matches my experience. My wife and her family really do not like the dumb-ass black people who make them look bad by association.
I do grill. I grill various things like steak, burgers, brats, salmon, etc. I also smoke things on occasion, which I would say is pretty different from grilling and really counts as its own thing.
First, you don't have to wait for your Weber chimney. Lighter fluid is vastly over-hated by the extremely online grilling crowd; I use it from time to time and I can't taste any difference in the food at all. Plus it's fun to watch a big flame shoot up as the fluid ignites. I would say try it for yourself and see if it works for you or not, don't take the claims that you must use a chimney starter on faith.
I definitely prefer charcoal to gas for grilling, though I do have a gas grill (from back when I lived at a place that strictly prohibited charcoal). I don't find it to be that much of a hassle, basically you get the coals going and walk away for 15 minutes. No biggie. I have a Weber Summit Kamado grill, and I love it. The design means that it holds temperature very well for long cooks, and it also is airtight enough that you can shut the dampers and the fire will go out (so you can save that unused fuel for next time). I've had various grills over the years ranging from El cheapo to not so cheap, and this one has been by far the best.
Biggest tip I would say is learn to control temp. Your charcoal grill is going to take in air on the bottom and vent exhaust out the top; both those things can be used to control air flow (and thus fire temp), but the intake matters more than the exhaust. If your grill lets you adjust coal height that also will make a big difference in how the food cooks. You don't want the fire to be rip-roaring hot because your food will burn on the outside before it cooks on the inside (though maybe you like it rare on the inside, but not all things are good that way). That temperature control is something you'll learn with time, and IMO is the real skill element in cooking with fire.
If you are going to cook bigger things (thick steaks, chicken and the like), you should use a two-zone cooking technique. When you put the coals in the grill, put them only on one half. Then you let your items cook through (or almost through) on the cool side, before moving them to the hot side to brown the outside nicely. This is a great technique and really effective, though the effectiveness does depend on there being enough thickness of meat so that you can get the outside nice and hot without heating the inside up too much. Doesn't really work super well on burgers or small steaks etc.
If you're interested in smoking, look up Meathead's articles at amazingribs.com. Dude knows his stuff and writes very informative articles, it helped me a lot when I first started smoking.
Overall, have fun! Grilling is a great way to cook, the fire hits you right in the caveman brain and it's very chill (especially if you smoke things). And keep us updated on how it goes, I look forward to hearing it!
Reminds me of when my wife and I got married. She joked that her minimum bar to clear was to last longer than some celebrity marriage (Kim Kardashian I think?) which only made it 6 months.
So as long as I can be pope for more than 5 months, I won't be in last place! Time to buckle down and really pope it up.
I don't think so, personally. Back when I was an agnostic I had people propose Pascal's wager to me, but it didn't really seem like a good bet to me. It seems to me that God would have more respect for honest skepticism than feigned belief (at least to the extent he distinguishes the two at all, which he might not). Accordingly, I felt in terms of Pascal it was better to continue to honestly disbelieve and seek answers, rather than pretending to a belief I didn't have.
You really do have a CS Lewis quote for all occasions. I respect a man who delivers on promises like that.
I've even heard of christians who believe in evolution and the big bang. If the bible can be stretched that far, so can pagan traditions to make them more compatible with modernism.
The mainstream interpretation of Genesis in the Catholic church (i.e. the majority of Christians) is that the creation story is meant to be mythical, written for an audience of the ancient world in terms that would be familiar to them. In that interpretation the point of the story is to educate people that a single all-powerful god created the world, not a pantheon or other views that would've been prevalent at the time. This isn't exactly a fringe position you're talking about here, nor would most people (except those like your grandfather) consider it to be a stretch. The Church has known for a long time (going back to the first millennium AD) that the purpose of the Bible isn't to be a science textbook, and that trying to find those answers in the Bible would just make Christians fools.
the large gap between the internet, and The Church. This is a feature imo.
Yeah, I definitely would agree with that. If my parish was anything like the terminally online Catholics you see on social media and stuff, I would've probably run away a long time ago. But it's really nothing like that. They are just a bunch of normal people trying to do the right thing and get closer to God.
It's going to be me. I'm gonna hit up the college of cardinals and put my name out there for consideration.
I think it's fair to blame some Jews (not even all Jews) of the first century for Jesus' death. The real error that Christians made was a) blaming all Jews for this, and b) transferring that guilt onto their descendants. No crime is so monstrous that an entire race of people should carry that guilt. There were plenty of Jews even at the time who were innocent of the crime (for example, Mary, all the apostles minus Judas, etc), let alone their descendants centuries later.
Letting everyone just "decide" is the last thing you want.
It may be the last thing that some people want, but it's kind of putting words in his mouth to say it's the last thing @LiberalRetvrn wants.
Having separate words for talking about biological sex and gender is useful.
No it isn't, because those aren't separate things to begin with. "Gender" is merely a synonym for "sex". And much like @Crowstep said, there was no confusion on this point until recent decades when activists have tried to redefine the words to point to an entirely new concept. But going by the old (and imo correct) definitions, it is incoherent to talk about "choosing your gender" because that is an objective fact about reality. Perhaps one day we will be able to effectively change someone's sex/gender, but we aren't there yet. So you don't get to choose at our current tech level.
Also not paying maintenance on your truck so you have to pay for maintenance out of your own pocket?
Yeah this was a red flag to me as well. @solowingpixy maintenance on the company owned vehicle is their problem, not yours. Stop paying their bills for them posthaste, and if the truck dies because they're too cheap to change the oil that is just how it goes. Sucks to suck, as the kids say.
Fair distinction. And yes, I was addressing #1. We had a thread on the motte a few months back where people were arguing that the solution to the obesity problem in America is to try to shame fat people even harder, which I felt was not a realistic solution (even aside from whether we should do it for kindness reasons).
I would say I agree that eliminating #2 is not feasible. I think all we can reasonably expect is that even if people feel disgusted by someone, they don't then start saying "wow fatty you really ate that donut like the fat fuck you are" to the person in question. But how they feel is not really a problem as long as they aren't being mean to others.
This is kind of a tangent off your post, but Como Agua Para Chocolate always reminds me of how it taught me the amount of information we can lack from cultural context. When I took Spanish in college, the movie version of that was one of the works we could get from the library to practice our Spanish. And I knew what the title literally meant, but completely misunderstood the meaning behind the words. I had no idea that sometimes people will make hot chocolate by combining boiling water and chocolate (since here in the US we use powder and it's kinda 50/50 on whether we use milk or water for the liquid). So as best as I could figure, the title was referring to the feeling when you eat a lot of chocolate at once and it makes you really thirsty. A glass of water is super refreshing at times like that. So even though I knew the literal meaning of the words, cultural context meant I took away a very different interpretation than what the author intended. Communication is a funny thing sometimes.
Maybe. I suppose I can really only speak to my experiences in the US on this topic.
Good thoughts, thanks. I think you're definitely right that acting locally is a great way to do good in ways you can be sure of the outcome.
I used to hold the view that you do, that nobody held the extreme form the obesity activists complain about.
I actually don't hold that view! I have seen plenty of that behavior (all over the Internet and even on this very forum), so that I know that there is a very real problem with people who just have seething hatred of fat people. Some try to couch it in terms of "we need to shame them so they improve", but that's a lie (maybe even lying to themselves) used to justify picking on easy targets.
I also agree that shaming does not work, nor am I proposing it. I've written impassioned arguments against shaming fat people, in fact. It sucks major ass to be obese, and it's full of constant shame every time one looks in the mirror (ask me how I know, lol). If the soul-crushing shame we already apply to fat people hasn't fixed it, no amount of shaming will.
So as far as that goes, I don't think we really disagree at all. What I'm trying to push back on is the overcorrection I perceive in activists all over the Internet (and which, in fairness, I may have incorrectly read into this discussion - prejudice can do that to you). I've seen way too many fat acceptance activists (ironically, including on TiA like you said) take positions that are untrue and unhelpful, such as:
- You don't need to change, the goal is to be healthy and not to lose weight
- People [meaning loving friends and family, not fat people hate posters] are bigots who can't accept that you are fine the way you are
- You can't be expected to change, you have a medical condition that means it's impossible
- You didn't do anything wrong in the first place, this is the result of external conditions in society (or genetics) which mean you have no culpability in where you are
Needless to say, I find these positions to be not only incorrect, but actively harmful to the people they purport to help. I think they're coming from a place of love (which is good), but that isn't the only thing that matters imo. You also have to not allow people to continue in the unhealthy direction they are going, at least not without being gently nudged into a better direction. What I'm advocating for is an approach where we are frank (but kind) with people about their own culpability in the mess they are in, while also not falling back on empty "just do better bro" advice. I think it's possible to both be honest with people that yes, they bear responsibility, while also being compassionate about the difficulty of the change they need to make and how they may need strategies that go beyond simple effort of will.
I'm going to make an analogy in the hopes that it'll help to make my position clearer. I view the obesity problem as being somewhat similar to the disease of sin in Christian thought. While in a sense sin isn't any individual's fault (due to original sin corrupting man and the world), each individual still bears culpability for the sinful choices he made. And while a sinner can't fix himself (only Jesus can do that), he still has to acknowledge that he is a sinner, do his best to sin no more (even though that won't be enough), and accept the Lord's help in fixing the disease of sin within him. So while the problem is beyond the individual to fix himself, there is a personal choice that must be made to turn away from the old bad path. I see the obesity problem as having a lot in common with that.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the point is that staying poor is very often the result of bad personal choices. Not always, but often enough that trying to remove personal responsibility from the equation (as many activists do) is misguided.
Sure, I'm happy to acknowledge that it varies. For example, I never had the supposed "teenage metabolism" even when I was a teenager. I gained weight from a very young age. But my frustration when people push back on CICO is that in my experience they usually blow right past "everyone's body is different and so the diet that works for one might not work for another" (which is reasonable), and into "CICO is nonsense and therefore people can't be expected to even try" (which is not).
- Prev
- Next
My understanding is that all the artificial sweeteners have calories, it's just that they taste so intensely sweet to us that you have to use a tiny amount compared to sugar. And that makes the calories negligible.
More options
Context Copy link