What is a 'secular dietary conviction'? Religious restrictions are 'God says it is morally wrong to consume this'. Are you suggesting that australian culture suggests 'it is morally wrong to not eat vegemite'? I don't think that's true.
Because if it's just 'australian people like to eat X, I'm australian, thus it's morally wrong to deny me 'X', I don't see how that's reasonable. It's also a strong australian cultural norm to not be confined to a small cell every day for the rest of your life, but that norm was knowingly taken away as part this inmates' conviction and sentencing. Surely eating vegemite is a much smaller concern compared to the imprisonment.
Religion is culture. If you doubt that, go to country X and ask them about god(s) then go to every other country and ask the same. Even if one of them got it right and is following the word of god, it would still mean every other country has got it wrong, and _theirs_ is just culture.
Now, if we bend for one cultural norm, why not another? I'd say it's not that his culture shouldn't be treated like religion, it should! It's just that religion shouldn't be treated specially in the first place.
This argument appears to me unjustified. This equating between culture and religion seems especially unworkable in modern times, where cultural groups don't have single religions at all. Eg in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions. If we were to equate these two things, does that imply that there is no shared american culture? I just don't see how this interpretation doesn't lead to a single stretched 'culture' term which basically ends up subsuming everything about people, and don't see how it is a useful term or how it aids in thought or understanding.
In this case, the point really isn't 'culture' vs 'religion' it's 'moral' vs 'preference'. Consuming vegemite is not a moral mandate for anyone, it's just a preference, like mayonnaise, fashion, or coke.
My argument is that a religion _is in itself_ a cultural group. Religion is culture, it's just that we have given it special status because people take it (much) more seriously than any other culture.
> does that imply that there is no shared american culture?
I think you might've convinced me of this just with your comment.
Also, flip "religion" and "culture" and the post still (mostly) works, though I don't think that proves anything.
The moral/preference idea is closer, but you get a lot of gray areas like sports teams and Sunday roasts (complete with threat of excommunication for non-adherence).
Buddhism as actually practiced for the last 2500 years ascribes all kinds of deity-like features and the supernatural to the Buddha – travel Asia and you’ll see people praying to Amitabha Buddha in order to be reborn in his Pure Land, and even Theravada Buddhism that doesn't go whole hog with pantheons still holds that the Buddha was divinely immune to fire, poison, and drowning. A non-supernatural Buddha is largely a feature of the twentieth-century West, which thought it could get something in tune with a more rational era by reviving, so it thought, “original Buddhism” with questionable results. Even non-revival, supernaturally charged strands of Buddhism have their converts in the West.
Sure, and there are followers of Christ who also do all the things he said not to (Catholics). I don't take a religion's followers as good examples of the founders intents.
The intent of Buddhism's founder is ultimately unknowable. The earliest source we have, the Pali canon, already contains the supernatural and the mythological. It cannot be emphasized enough just how modern attempts to reconstruct the "original" Buddhism are, and they are simply unfalsifiable.
But strangely, if enough people said they believed in the Great Salty Kangaroo, and part of their belief was a ritual consumption of vegemite every Tuesday - the request would have been granted.
I think that prisoners should be fed normal food which makes them feel comfortable. I'm not saying that it needs to be luxury meals, but there isn't a good reason for prisons in a free country to feed their prisoners bad food.
Could you please communicate instead of just replying? I have no idea what you're talking about and would appreciate a fully expressed thought instead of a one liner or a vague 6 word phrase.
But sugar is literally added to jelly as the preservative, that's why jelly exists to begin with.
For example, the very first recipe for strawberry jelly from some horrible spam recipe site:
2 cups (16 ounces) pure strawberry juice (I used 3 1/2 pounds ripe, fresh strawberries to get this amount of juice)
3 1/3 cups (666 grams) granulated sugar
Sure, that’s why sugar is added, but it doesn’t have to be. The point is to remove free water (water that bacteria can use, I don’t know the English expression for that), and you can do that by:
1. adding more sugar
2. cooking it for a longer time
3. adding pectin (either store-bought or from natural sources)
Of course it depends on the kind of fruit, but it’s quite rare to have more sugar than fruit, even without pectin or longer cooking time.
How is this a 'hack'? It's listing ingredients in order of quantity. The nutrition facts already tell you total amount of sugar per serving separately, that's not what the ingredient list is for to begin with. Also, I don't have much sympathy for someone surprised that jelly contains a lot of sugar:
A) Have you tasted it
B) Do you have any idea what jelly is or why it exists
C) Have you ever made it?
Jelly inherently, as a direct consequence of its very reason for existing, contains a lot of sugar, duh.
> Jelly inherently, as a direct consequence of its very reason for existing, contains a lot of sugar, duh.
If a typical jelly recipe calls for pounds of fruit and a few cups of sugar wouldn't be normal to expect fruit to be the first ingredient? If a company is using more added sugars than fruit that should be obvious without having to look at the nutrition facts
For the product in question, they aren't using more added sugars than fruit.
As you can read on the label:
Ingredients: Strawberries, High Fructose Corn syrup, Corn syrup, Sugar, Fruit Pectin, Citric Acid.
Serving Size 20g
Total Sugars 12g
Total Added Sugars 9g
Each tablespoon of jam contains 10-11 grams of fruit and 9-10 grams of added sugar. The jam is 60% sugar overall because there is sugar in the fruit too.
And that's weighted by share of the output. If you're measuring the input, this recipe is going to take a lot more "fruit" than "sugar", because part of making jam is boiling away a bunch of the water that occurs in fruit, whereas all of the added sugar is retained. (Corn syrup, however, seems to be about 2/3 water, which will make that comparison look worse.)
Typical jelly & jamrecipes call for close to 1:1 fruit to sugar. E.g. ¹Ball mason jars strawberry jam recipe calls for 7 cups sugar to 5 cups strawberries. Martha Stewart calls for 3/4 cup sugar for every cup of juice² in making jelly. The Joy of Cooking (44th printing 1988)notes that "Store-bought jellies, according to law, must have at least 45% fruit and 55% sugar". Etc.
There's no way that would be legal to sell. The whole point of the sugar in jam is preservation - you may get away with it for a while in a home canning scenario, but really a jam with 5% sugar is not shelf stable, and needs to be stored under refrigeration (commercial low sugar jams have to add an additional preservative like potassium sorbate instead).
The Joy of Cooking's recipes do this, but the total sugar content ends up the same because they boil down the juice into a thick syrup first. The sugar just comes from the same fruit as what's being preserved, instead of cane or beets.
In some jurisdiction, you cannot call that a jam, because you added foreign pectin. A jam must only use the fruit's natural pectin, plus sugar to activate the pectin.
It depends on the type of fruit though, since there are some fruits that won't set properly with the low-sugar pectin. (This only applies to home canning though, since the industrial manufacturers should have access to other thickeners.)
It does come out a bit less viscous than industrial jams, although enough that it can stay on top of a slice of bread, but it's much healthier and, more importantly, it tastes so much better. Works with berries pretty well.
> It does come out a bit less viscous than industrial jams, although enough that it can stay on top of a slice of bread
It really depends on the fruit though—most of the time it works great, but there have been a few fruits that wouldn't set at all (closer to a syrup than a jam) with a low-sugar recipe, but set perfectly when I added more sugar.
> and, more importantly, it tastes so much better.
You can make quick mocktails with a fruit juice as base (or a mini can of Coke, 200ml): 1 part fruit juice, 1 part fizzy water, a little tonic water, a few dashes of your favorite bitter (Angostura, orange, cardamon, etc...) and a slice of lemon or lime.
I think my comment was a touch deeper than you caught. Jam doesn’t have a strictly required amount of sugar, it’s not defined as having X amount, so saying “you can make it with less” is two people talking about how much milk makes a bowl of cereal. Both are correct, it’s jam either way and it’s a bowl of cereal either way. Think about it.
The hack is to use several different ingredients of the same type where they would have used just one, and doing it just so they can have the ingredient they want listed first as first.
If we were to take all preceding arguments seriously, couldn't that be explained by americans going to live in a low-cost-of-living country once they've earned their living?
(Don't know your country to know if that's true or not, but it's a possibility)
I was always taught that the executive branch enforces the law, not interprets it. If the executive branch or legislative branches disagree with the judicial branch, then they have the responsibility to appeal or deal with it; they can't just ignore it because they disagree.
It turns out that in the end, enforcement is the only thing that matters. Written law doesn't matter, and interpretation doesn't matter, except insofar as they affect enforcement.
Eg Python is barely trudging along with random forks of a library that stopped being supported 10 years ago, each fork only getting maintained for about a year at a time.
I really think outside of Java and c#, soap is totally dead.
Yeah, obviously we wouldn't try to do that. Our laws, cultures, and priorities are wildly different. By this lens, the main problem seems to be that the eu expanded too much and grew too large to actually have a coherent purpose.
> eu expanded too much and grew too large to actually have a coherent purpose.
Anybody seriously thinking that seems completely oblivious to how central EU is to the economies and every day lives of member states. There is a lot to criticise about EU but without it, the Europeans lives would be much worse and their economies would be nothing to speak of. It is very sad that populists managed to popularize the image of the bloated unnecessary monster. Even otherwise intellectually capable folks.
How would you detect broken video decoding or font rendering? I don't know what those are. I don't think i've had any issues this year (Maybe i had do do some pacman-wrangling once this year, but i'm slow to update, so that was probably my fault...)), that I noticed anyway, but maybe everything's broken and i just can't tell.
Because if it's just 'australian people like to eat X, I'm australian, thus it's morally wrong to deny me 'X', I don't see how that's reasonable. It's also a strong australian cultural norm to not be confined to a small cell every day for the rest of your life, but that norm was knowingly taken away as part this inmates' conviction and sentencing. Surely eating vegemite is a much smaller concern compared to the imprisonment.
reply