nonsesusical
Nonseusical
nonsesusical

You realize this is a textbook for sixth graders where they are likely only introducing the concept of geologic time, right? You realize you’re getting angry over a quote from the standards that has no context by what they mean by “constant temperature” which is likely day to day which is what I was taught when I was

You seem to be the only person who made a comment that actually seems to realize that the greenhouse gas effect is actually not the same thing as climate change. Climate change has only been happening since the industrial revolution, and is the natural result of what happens when you add a bunch of greenhose gases to

Not to be THAT person, but technically speaking they’re right. The greenhouse gas effect is connected to but distinct from climate change, and when I was a child a millenia ago before global warming was a thing this what I was taught. The atmosphere traps carbon dioxide which is what keeps the earth at a relatively

1. restaurants serve food not cigarettes. Bars sell alcohol. Smoking is not actually central to either business. I’m not arguing that people not go to smoking bars, I don’t show up to hookah bars demanding that they burn all the water pipes.

In the northeast (generally) smoking is banned in bars too (unless they’re smoking bars which for obvious reasons I don’t go to for the same reason I don’t go to vegan restaurants - they’re not made for me!)

I’m not getting carried away. I’m actually responding to your statements without caving to your ad-hominen attacks.

1. Fine, your “suggestion” is gentrification.

Ha well to be fair it isn’t “science” it’s bad study design coupled with questionable jezebel reporting.

I think the study is flawed because once again it preferences taste over texture. I drink my coffee black because I did Whole30, and now I don’t really like drinking sugar (but I think IPA’s are way too bitter), and hate tonic water (also too bitter) but when I tried to add cream back I realized I can’t stand the

I wrote this to another poster but my issue is less with their smoking environment (I just won’t go there - plus food tastes shittier when you’re around a lot of smoke) but that they seem to be implying that smoking bans are totalitarian.

My inability to go to this specific restaurant is actually not my problem. It’s their language and that they are arguing basically against municipal smoking bans. Smoke-free restaurants weren’t the norm until municipal bans came into play - everyone thought it would hurt business as though millions getting sick and

They lost me in regards to their stance on smoking.

1. I said Western Europe cared. I actually wrote “western europe cared because”. My point is that Western Europe was somewhat unique in this regard.

There are way too many pre-Columbian theories of contact between East and West to say that nobody “knew”

That people who are moving to a place because of it’s happening brunch spots are a populace who are there to live out their “New York City” dreams before moving back to the suburban hellhole they crawled out of, but in doing so they displace longstanding residents and businesses who actually develop and create

Uhm you do realize that Queens already has people living there? Nice middle-class, working class people who don’t need to be pushed out by people “slumming it” since they can’t afford their dream locales.