Topic: Eating Top Ramen with Chopsticks is an Amazing Experience
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM started this discussion 10 years ago #54,770
Chopsticks are such a cool invention.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #711,331
They are just sticks
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 48 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #711,332
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 30 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #711,334
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #711,337
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #711,339
@711,334 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
But they did invent noodles which European cishets culturally appropriated into "pasta".
But they did invent noodles which European cishets culturally appropriated into "pasta".
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
D-g !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #711,341
Use chopsticks on a knife and a fork, that's the multicultural way.
ぶたん joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 19 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #711,344
huh
ok
ok
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 13 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,437
@711,334 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
> Seriously. No one ever invented sticks.
This is dumb reasoning, it's like saying nobody invented the baseball bat or the table or the chair. Chopticks, like any other product, have been fashioned into their shape in order to serve a specific purpose. Hence, they are an invention.
> Seriously. No one ever invented sticks.
This is dumb reasoning, it's like saying nobody invented the baseball bat or the table or the chair. Chopticks, like any other product, have been fashioned into their shape in order to serve a specific purpose. Hence, they are an invention.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,441
@previous (G)
Baseball bats don't exist in nature. Sticks are some of the worst eating utensils ever. We're not still in the jungle
Baseball bats don't exist in nature. Sticks are some of the worst eating utensils ever. We're not still in the jungle
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,444
@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
If chopsticks are just sticks then baseball bats are just tree branches and thus exist in nature.
If chopsticks are just sticks then baseball bats are just tree branches and thus exist in nature.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
adam djensen joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,447
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,449
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 double-posted this 10 years ago, 19 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,450
adam djensen replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,451
@711,449 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Actually chopsticks are carved from bamboo and are not in fact random twigs found on the ground.
Actually chopsticks are carved from bamboo and are not in fact random twigs found on the ground.
ぶたん replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,461
@711,441 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
> Baseball bats don't exist in nature. Sticks are some of the worst eating utensils ever. We're not still in the jungle
theyre better than forks and spoons
little metal food shovels to shovel the food into your mouthe withe its grosse
> Baseball bats don't exist in nature. Sticks are some of the worst eating utensils ever. We're not still in the jungle
theyre better than forks and spoons
little metal food shovels to shovel the food into your mouthe withe its grosse
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,462
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 double-posted this 10 years ago, 18 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,463
ぶたん replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,465
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,467
@711,462 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
So how are they different to baseball bats?
You're saying sticks being carved into chopsticks isn't enough to consider chopsticks man-made?
So how are they different to baseball bats?
You're saying sticks being carved into chopsticks isn't enough to consider chopsticks man-made?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 53 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,474
@711,441 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
> Baseball bats don't exist in nature.
Neither do chopsticks you dumb broad. Fucking hell, you have the reasoning powers of a 6-year-old.
> Baseball bats don't exist in nature.
Neither do chopsticks you dumb broad. Fucking hell, you have the reasoning powers of a 6-year-old.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,475
Actually, I think I see what kook is getting at. I think what she means is that you could possibly find natural sticks to use in the same way as chopsticks. So chopsticks are "just sticks".
Of course, this disregards the whole process of carving the sticks into tools purpose-made for eating.
Of course, this disregards the whole process of carving the sticks into tools purpose-made for eating.
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,477
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
But this still makes no sense in the context of her point which was that "chopsticks are not an invention". An invention is something fashioned by mankind to suit a purpose. Using her reasoning you could also find a thick log of wood which could be upended and used as a table, so does this therefore mean that tables are not an invention? We can find coconut halves in nature which can be used as bowls, so is the bowl now not an invention? We can pick our teeth with tiny splinters of wood, so are toothpicks now not an invention?
But this still makes no sense in the context of her point which was that "chopsticks are not an invention". An invention is something fashioned by mankind to suit a purpose. Using her reasoning you could also find a thick log of wood which could be upended and used as a table, so does this therefore mean that tables are not an invention? We can find coconut halves in nature which can be used as bowls, so is the bowl now not an invention? We can pick our teeth with tiny splinters of wood, so are toothpicks now not an invention?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 41 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,487
Chinese consider the knife and fork to be crude and barbaric. A Western chef just plops a giant hunk of meat in front of you, and you have to saw and stab it to get it into your mouth. Contrarily, a Chinese chef presents beautiful, delicate food, already in bite-size portions, that you daintily pick up with small, delicate sticks.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,488
ぶたん replied with this 10 years ago, 31 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,492
@711,487 (K)
> Chinese consider the knife and fork to be crude and barbaric. A Western chef just plops a giant hunk of meat in front of you, and you have to saw and stab it to get it into your mouth. Contrarily, a Chinese chef presents beautiful, delicate food, already in bite-size portions, that you daintily pick up with small, delicate sticks.
true and i love it. makes me pace myself when i eat too
> Chinese consider the knife and fork to be crude and barbaric. A Western chef just plops a giant hunk of meat in front of you, and you have to saw and stab it to get it into your mouth. Contrarily, a Chinese chef presents beautiful, delicate food, already in bite-size portions, that you daintily pick up with small, delicate sticks.
true and i love it. makes me pace myself when i eat too
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,498
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,506
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,520
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 double-posted this 10 years ago, 35 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,522
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 triple-posted this 10 years ago, 32 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,523
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,525
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 2 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,526
@711,523 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Sticks "used" for picking up food are found in nature, yes (just as, to walk you though it once again, logs of wood used as tables are found in nature too), but not - by definition - sticks which are fashioned by human hands or machinery for that purpose (in other words - chopsticks), hence the word 'invention'. Fucking hell why are you so dense on this issue, you're usually one of the less moronic people around here.
Sticks "used" for picking up food are found in nature, yes (just as, to walk you though it once again, logs of wood used as tables are found in nature too), but not - by definition - sticks which are fashioned by human hands or machinery for that purpose (in other words - chopsticks), hence the word 'invention'. Fucking hell why are you so dense on this issue, you're usually one of the less moronic people around here.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,527
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,531
@previous (L)
So again, by the same logic (sic), the wheel is not an invention, rather it's the machine that makes the wheel which is the invention? Do I understand your reasoning correctly?
If this is so, then would you (re-)define the word invention please, as you understand it?
So again, by the same logic (sic), the wheel is not an invention, rather it's the machine that makes the wheel which is the invention? Do I understand your reasoning correctly?
If this is so, then would you (re-)define the word invention please, as you understand it?
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,536
@previous (J)
The wheel was discovered, not invented, because round things exist in nature and someone rolled one. The axle, however, was invented. Thanks
The wheel was discovered, not invented, because round things exist in nature and someone rolled one. The axle, however, was invented. Thanks
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,538
@previous (L)
> The wheel was discovered, not invented, because round things exist in nature and someone rolled one. The axle, however, was invented. Thanks
Axles are not "found in nature" in the same way that "round things" are?
> The wheel was discovered, not invented, because round things exist in nature and someone rolled one. The axle, however, was invented. Thanks
Axles are not "found in nature" in the same way that "round things" are?
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,545
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,550
@previous (L)
That's irrelevent, you said an "axle" is the invention, not "an axle connected to a wheel". The axle alone is the invention to you, yes? That's what you wrote?
So then why, to repeat the question, is a wheel, which is fashioned to serve as a transportation device, not an invention, but an axle, which is fashioned to connect to a wheel, is?
That's irrelevent, you said an "axle" is the invention, not "an axle connected to a wheel". The axle alone is the invention to you, yes? That's what you wrote?
So then why, to repeat the question, is a wheel, which is fashioned to serve as a transportation device, not an invention, but an axle, which is fashioned to connect to a wheel, is?
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #711,559
@previous (J)
> That's irrelevent, you said an "axle" is the invention, not "an axle connected to a wheel". The axle alone is the invention to you, yes? That's what you wrote?
The invention of the axle happened at the exact moment it was connected to the wheel. Before that, it was just a useful stick for poking and hitting things. An axle doesn't exist before it is connected to a wheel the first time, thus the discovered stick becomes the invented axle.
That's the difference between inventions and discoveries. Don't try to argue your point over example semantics. Try to understand the underlying logic.
> That's irrelevent, you said an "axle" is the invention, not "an axle connected to a wheel". The axle alone is the invention to you, yes? That's what you wrote?
The invention of the axle happened at the exact moment it was connected to the wheel. Before that, it was just a useful stick for poking and hitting things. An axle doesn't exist before it is connected to a wheel the first time, thus the discovered stick becomes the invented axle.
That's the difference between inventions and discoveries. Don't try to argue your point over example semantics. Try to understand the underlying logic.
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,570
@previous (L)
"The invention of the axle happened at the exact moment it was connected to the wheel"
Firstly I want to say that I'm proud of you. You're sticking with this, and slowly but surely we are getting you there. Just stay with me for the final push here, you are so close to getting it. Here we go...
Once again using your very own logic (sic), before it was connected to a wheel is wasn't an invention, correct? It was only a stick of wood, yes?
And so...what is a wheel if it is not connected to anything? What is the difference between "a wheel" and "a round thing found in nature". By your reasoning, can a wheel still be a wheel if it not connected to anything else, including (this part is crucial)...axles?
Your own argument is napalming your own point. You say an axle is only an invention if it is connected to a wheel...but then how can a wheel not be an invention if it is not connected to an axle? If an axle which isn't connected to a wheel is only "a discovered stick", then how is a wheel which isn't connected to anything merely "a discovered round thing"? An axle is an invention because it serves a wider purpose, yes? Just as the difference between a wheel and a "round thing" is that the wheel serves a purpose which (again, crucial, try to follow this...) would not be possible had it not been used for that purpose, even by being connected to something else. For example an axle.
Stop crying about semantics and address the underlying logic (sic) of your argument. Your own defintion of what makes an axle an 'invention' is the exaxt same thing which makes a wheel an 'invention'.
"The invention of the axle happened at the exact moment it was connected to the wheel"
Firstly I want to say that I'm proud of you. You're sticking with this, and slowly but surely we are getting you there. Just stay with me for the final push here, you are so close to getting it. Here we go...
Once again using your very own logic (sic), before it was connected to a wheel is wasn't an invention, correct? It was only a stick of wood, yes?
And so...what is a wheel if it is not connected to anything? What is the difference between "a wheel" and "a round thing found in nature". By your reasoning, can a wheel still be a wheel if it not connected to anything else, including (this part is crucial)...axles?
Your own argument is napalming your own point. You say an axle is only an invention if it is connected to a wheel...but then how can a wheel not be an invention if it is not connected to an axle? If an axle which isn't connected to a wheel is only "a discovered stick", then how is a wheel which isn't connected to anything merely "a discovered round thing"? An axle is an invention because it serves a wider purpose, yes? Just as the difference between a wheel and a "round thing" is that the wheel serves a purpose which (again, crucial, try to follow this...) would not be possible had it not been used for that purpose, even by being connected to something else. For example an axle.
Stop crying about semantics and address the underlying logic (sic) of your argument. Your own defintion of what makes an axle an 'invention' is the exaxt same thing which makes a wheel an 'invention'.
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,573
@previous (J)
Wheels are found in nature, and were discovered. Sticks are found in nature, and were discovered. Combining wheels with a stick is an axle which is an invention.
Wheels are found in nature, and were discovered. Sticks are found in nature, and were discovered. Combining wheels with a stick is an axle which is an invention.
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,607
@previous (L)
> Combining wheels with a stick is an axle which is an invention.
HAHAHAHA, no it isn't you moron :) Oh for fuck's sake, could you not have written that a while ago and saved us both some time :) Dude, it turns out you don't know what an 'axle' is, go look the word up and then start your argument over again.
> Combining wheels with a stick is an axle which is an invention.
HAHAHAHA, no it isn't you moron :) Oh for fuck's sake, could you not have written that a while ago and saved us both some time :) Dude, it turns out you don't know what an 'axle' is, go look the word up and then start your argument over again.
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,624
@previous (J)
Turning a stick into an axle is an invention. You need to combine it with wheels, initially, to invent it. You can't just rename a stick an axle. First it must be combined with wheels because previous to that axles don't exist.
Repeating the same simple concept and using the axle as an example has confused you and I'm sorry.
Inventions and discoveries are different. Discovering you can fall into a hole is not inventing a hole. Discovering you can push food into your mouth with a stick is not inventing chopsticks. They are sticks.
Turning a stick into an axle is an invention. You need to combine it with wheels, initially, to invent it. You can't just rename a stick an axle. First it must be combined with wheels because previous to that axles don't exist.
Repeating the same simple concept and using the axle as an example has confused you and I'm sorry.
Inventions and discoveries are different. Discovering you can fall into a hole is not inventing a hole. Discovering you can push food into your mouth with a stick is not inventing chopsticks. They are sticks.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,625
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,626
@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
I guess the first monkey that picked up two sticks and pushed food into his mouth discovered chopsticks
I guess the first monkey that picked up two sticks and pushed food into his mouth discovered chopsticks
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,628
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,633
@711,624 (L)
I always wanted to try and use two sticks I find out in the wild as chopsticks. I somehow doubt they'd be as efficient though.
I always wanted to try and use two sticks I find out in the wild as chopsticks. I somehow doubt they'd be as efficient though.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,634
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,635
@711,633 (☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM)
> out in the wild
Just look for a tree. Its where sticks get invented.
> out in the wild
Just look for a tree. Its where sticks get invented.
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,636
@711,634 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
@previous (L)
Sadly no trees by my apartment complex. ? Maybe when I go back to school I could look for sticks.
My prediction, regular sticks would make horrible chopsticks due to them not being shaped.
@previous (L)
Sadly no trees by my apartment complex. ? Maybe when I go back to school I could look for sticks.
My prediction, regular sticks would make horrible chopsticks due to them not being shaped.
ぶたん replied with this 10 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,643
@711,520 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
> You stab it and pick it up
with chopsticks??? thats not how you use chopsticks
> You stab it and pick it up
with chopsticks??? thats not how you use chopsticks
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,646
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 double-posted this 10 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,648
@711,636 (☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM)
Take a few outside pics of your apartment. I'm dubious that you have no trees or bushes.
Take a few outside pics of your apartment. I'm dubious that you have no trees or bushes.
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,650
> It is impolite to spear food with a chopstick. Anything too difficult to be handled with chopsticks is traditionally eaten with a spoon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chopsticks#Chinese_etiquette
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chopsticks#Chinese_etiquette
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,654
@711,648 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Dox, stalking, harassment, blah, blah, blah.
Yes, there's trees here, but not sure if they have sticks on the ground because the lawn.
Dox, stalking, harassment, blah, blah, blah.
Yes, there's trees here, but not sure if they have sticks on the ground because the lawn.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,656
@711,650 (☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM)
If only we had a poster here with years of real-life experience in Chinese culture. Oh well.
If only we had a poster here with years of real-life experience in Chinese culture. Oh well.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,657
Kook is so white trash it's appalling.
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,658
@previous (M)
Would you, praytell, in your own words, say she is more or less white trash than postmortem?
Would you, praytell, in your own words, say she is more or less white trash than postmortem?
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,659
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 double-posted this 10 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,660
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,661
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,663
Anonymous M replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,664
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,665
Anonymous M replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,666
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,668
Anonymous M replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,672
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,681
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,682
@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Normal isn't the right word, methinks, but that's okay, as I'm not normal either.
Normal isn't the right word, methinks, but that's okay, as I'm not normal either.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,683
☪atherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,684
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,685
ぶたん replied with this 10 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,806
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,833
!pw/dsGq5Ac joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #711,838
@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
> Are you? Do you ever worry about looking dumb?
Not even when he put on Salty's dress and pretended he had tits.
> Are you? Do you ever worry about looking dumb?
Not even when he put on Salty's dress and pretended he had tits.