-1
SirCamembert -1 points ago +2 / -3

Well your argument sure devolved to the perspective of a failed disgruntled basement teenager quick.

I never argued accreditation actually makes you guaranteed to be satisfactory in the position, but it does give you the title of the position, because that title literally means you gained the accreditation. Otherwise you’re considered a head cook if unaccredited and while in the same position as a head chef. Of course a cook could be more capable than a chef, but the difference is still explicit.

Words matter. We use them for a reason despite what you and liberals seem to think.

-2
SirCamembert -2 points ago +1 / -3

I’m not even addressing all of that bullshit straw man argument that has absolutely nothing to do with defining the title of a chef, but are you seriously about to argue that all accredited titles have absolutely no meaning anymore because some doctors in influential positions lost your trust? What the fuck is the difference between a chef and a head cook and an enthusiastic home cook with helping kids anymore? Why use different words or titles ever if they are all just opinions?

Ok, I’m a sous chef nuclear engineer marine Sargent who is also a self-licensed attorney, medical professional, and financial advisor. Accreditations don’t matter anyways, right? Systems are absolutely meaningless! What sound logic! I didn’t realize we were living in the same fairy tale liberals were where we can make up our own pronouns, adjectives, genders, and titles.

Thanks for letting me know what kind of rationality I’m actually arguing against. What a waste of time, you’ll just believe literally whatever you want like all the other liberals.

-2
SirCamembert -2 points ago +1 / -3

I can’t believe this is where your argument had led, it’s hilarious.

Good luck claiming accredited titles without gaining the accreditation. That’s not how the world works and you will be laughed at. Try claiming to be a lawyer or doctor with that logic and put it on your resume.

-2
SirCamembert -2 points ago +1 / -3

I think you’re the one that can’t get over the semantics and admit that you are wrong. It’s not like it changes your core argument at all to admit the primary difference is a formal training and accreditation to become a chef.

The meanings of words matter, you can belittle a desire for truth as being trivial and semantic all you want.

-2
SirCamembert -2 points ago +1 / -3

TIL I’m a chef. I didn’t realize words mean nothing to you.

Sad that you think a couple downvotes and an imagination that can’t imagine that anyone who disagrees with the premise of the post isn’t going to scroll down to see my comment is enough to sway your opinion.

Maybe if you didn’t state the equivalencies as absolutes and stated it as a likeness instead it’d be more apparent. I’m actually not convinced you meant it as an analogy at first because of how adept you present yourself in communicating precisely, by stating that I should have not used absolutes as well when I stated you were completely wrong instead of saying mostly wrong.

-2
SirCamembert -2 points ago +1 / -3

A lot of words to try and talk over me and come off as pseudo-intellectual, but still no acknowledgment that creating a dish does not ever make one a chef. Formal training is literally the PRIMARY defining quality of a chef. It’s not having the ability to create dishes, that’s just something that happens to come with a formal training that anyone, even and especially untrained cooks, could be able to do. I’ve worked under cooks who developed the recipes on the menu themselves, it never made them into chefs.

For everyone like me that cares enough to speak up, there are many more staying silent because they don’t see it as worthwhile for them to contend. It’s foolish to assume you aren’t losing anyone by prefacing your entire post with a falsehood simply because no one else is speaking up.

I actually didn’t realize that personalities and influencers was another analogy, I thought you were saying that was part of their definition because it was stated in the midst of you attempting to define the distinction, and you stated it as an absolute not as a likeness. That analogy I can mostly agree with because it fits with chefs overseeing other cooks, despite personalities not typically having formal training to become personalities.

5
SirCamembert 5 points ago +6 / -1

I think you need to keep in mind how demoralized everyone is right now because of the midterms. His announcement is clearly in context of the midterms being stolen. If what he says amounts to nothing, people are seriously going to tune out en masse.

-2
SirCamembert -2 points ago +1 / -3

You could read the original comment and understand what I was trying to correct without taking it so personally, holy shit. You act like I’m attacking your entire post when I’m trying to correct you for not being correct about the difference between chefs and cooks. Literally the only thing you got right was that chefs can create a dish (literally anyone can. I have, it doesn’t make me a chef.), and you’re acting like that article just supports your position entirely? You didn’t even mention how the main and primary difference in a chef is having a FORMAL training and overseeing other cooks. “Cooks are influencers while Chefs are personalities”? That statement couldn’t be further from the truth.

If you want an analogy to work, then you need to understand the nuance of your analogy better.

-2
SirCamembert -2 points ago +1 / -3

Yup. There’s more to that comment too. You’re getting close.

-3
SirCamembert -3 points ago +1 / -4

That’s not what I was arguing against. Slow down and quit acting so childish and understand what others are saying.

-6
SirCamembert -6 points ago +2 / -8

Your difference between a chef and a cook is completely wrong.

A cook works from experience, and a chef works from formal training.

A chef will manage multiple cooks and will have an in depth understanding of the different ingredients being prepared in a dish, and why they go together flavorfully and nutritionally. A cook just simply might know what tastes good together because he's cooked it before.

It's like the difference between an electrician and an electrical engineer.

Your distinctions between the two are not accurate at all in their real distinctions.

3
SirCamembert 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yea a bunch of people have been primed into wanting lockdowns with all the post apocalyptic and zombie themed movies and games. They get off to the idea of it, and feel morally superior for masking up and locking themselves inside because they see others fighting against it and can blame them for all the issues.

Long story short, these liberals think they’re living in a movie with them as the main character and this is all just a big thrill to them.

0
SirCamembert 0 points ago +1 / -1

Reading comprehension 0/10, like trying to talk with a god damn bot or something 😂😂😂I’m convinced you aren’t even reading my replies, you just glance through a few buzzwords that trigger you and go off on whatever popped into your mind.

-1
SirCamembert -1 points ago +1 / -2

I seriously can't tell whether you're trolling or the biggest idiot I've ever talked to. Have you even finished highschool, or are you foreign and uneducated? It's like our whole past argument is just non-existent or incomprehensible to you with the shit you say. And the info being on Reddit has nothing to do with the info itself. You should really consider educating yourself if you're actually being serious. I can't believe people can be so incoherent. I suggest you read the answersingenesis' scientific research paper very carefully that addresses this specifically if you can even grasp the words and concepts within. Real science deserves the real scientific method.

Since Reddit triggers you to not even look into it, here's other sources that aren't YouTube videos like yours, I know it may be difficult for you because you have to read instead of listen to a YouTuber:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/403460/why-is-moon-light-cold

I didn't realize cold moonlight was actually a flat-earth premise until I saw this link, they prove the idea is false with FLIR imaging:

https://flatearth.ws/cold-moonlight

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/flat_earth_moonlight_heat.pdf

And now that you've exposed yourself as a flat-earther... I think I'll just end it here because everyone else reading this will have everything they need to form an opinion. Anything further would be redundant and a waste of my time. I'm sure you'll just believe literally whatever you want regardless of what's been proven though because your bias and ego are far too great (you seriously said that "light" couldn't be plural and then pretended like you never even said that). I'll be waiting for you to double down yet again so that I can laugh at it and finally move on from this dumb conversation.

28
SirCamembert 28 points ago +28 / -0

Your vote always mattered. Without enough votes, they wouldn’t even need to cheat and would 100% get away with it.

0
SirCamembert 0 points ago +1 / -1

Wow you discount a Reddit link simply for being a link to Reddit and ignore all of the sourced arguments within and then posts YouTube links? 0/4? Lol this person is definitely living in their own fantasy, the guy who doesn’t think the word light can be plural and just keeps doubling down on stupidity. Good luck with that.

1
SirCamembert 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s cool, I personally don’t appeal to manly authority like Pharisees and prefer to get my info from the Bible.

It appears you’re wrong about the moon cooling things as well. That’s 0/3 so far for your arguments, do you really expect me to keep entertaining someone so consistently wrong? It’s exposure to the night sky, not moonlight. Here’s a sourced thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/43l25n/comment/czizff7/

1
SirCamembert 1 point ago +2 / -1

That’s also plainly false, and I’m realizing you don’t really have a good grasp on things and shouldn’t be arguing.

“Light” can be both plural and singular. When God said “let there be light” do you really think He just meant one photon of light or one single light source like you seem to think the word means, or was he referring to the creation of light plurally?

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/light.html

Go somewhere without light pollution then, like how everywhere would’ve been before technology. Starlight (notice how I didn’t use “lights” and that word still makes sense?) is pretty impressively bright in a clear night sky. I’ve seen it and have had my way lit by it at night with no moon in the sky.

1
SirCamembert 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nice I didn’t know I had followers. You’re the only one looking like an idiot thinking this is at all comparable to whatever previous thing I said that upset you.

0
SirCamembert 0 points ago +2 / -2

Lol you're delusional or just an absolute retard.

First answer isn't an answer, it's a deflection.

Second answer also literally answers absolutely none of the cited questions. Not a single one.

Go ahead and keep up that ego believing that you somehow triggered me lol I personally am not going to continue interacting with such a retarded person.

3
SirCamembert 3 points ago +3 / -0

Remind yourself that Kabbhalists abhor Jesus and think he is a false prophet. Kanye is calling out Jews explicitly right now.

Now ask yourself, what kind of message do you think Yeezus sends to Jay-Z who hangs out with Kabbhalistic Jews?

3
SirCamembert 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Con" isn't pronounced quite the same though. What he really took out was the "Kahn" sound. Kahn means ruler. So he took the hubris out of his name.

1
SirCamembert 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's kind of a non-statement because we wouldn't see anything if anything happened to make it unable to be seen.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›