According to askmen.com (reliable?) the following are originally Canadian expressions: washroom, chocolate bar, pop (soda), mickey (small bottle of alcohol), two-four (case of beer containing 24 bottles), double-double (coffee with two cream and two sugar), puck fuck (groupie for hockey players), pogey (welfare) and the Robertson Screwdriver (square-head). Not to mention the obvious ones; Canuck, Eh, Hoser, and Loonie.
Then again, maybe it is just Canadians who use them...
Honestly, I think what irks Brits (and Canadians) about "Americanisms" isn't the usage of different terms or funny spin-offs of English. Rather, it is almost total disregard for form, style, meaning and flow in place of... well... in place of the unwillingness to refine oneself. If I just groan a few syllables, as long as I use the same kind of groan to mean the same thing; you will eventually learn what I mean by it. "Git 'r dun!"
Whereas, you watch British comedy like Fry and Laurie and it quickly becomes apparent that speech is a kind of artform in Britain. Stephen Fry's humor almost always boils down to a creative use of language. Personally, I enjoy the clarity of thought I get from a diverse language. Now, I dunno, just saying, the American culture ethos has always been a bit nitty-gritty and doesn't seem to pay much attention to detail or style.
Here I think is an easy way to understand male/female sexuality and prowess:
Men are Sadists Women are Masochists
Just generally speaking; women are attracted to sadistic behavior in men. They want a man with power, influence, control, and a small circle of concern (mainly her).
Men are attracted to naivity, innocence, "purity", "divinity". They want something which they can take ownership and control over.
But there is a vicarious role reversal that occurs too; where the woman actually seeks control and power over the man through her aesthetic charm and need of constant approval, she winds up trapping the man in a mesh of necessary conditions to satisfy her insecurity. So he becomes the submissive one, submitting to her demands, all-the-while maintaining the appearance of the sadist. Meanwhile she continues to appear to be the masochist who is dominated by the man.
It seems I've made an error in my first comment. Upon reviewing the link to Ariely's experience the reverse was true:
"The speed at which the nurses remove the bandages is almost always too fast for me. They hold on to the edge of a bandage and quickly strip it off. This method causes me a short, but intense pain as the bandage is removed, followed by a longer and more muffled pain. "
Okay, I can see that being another source of digust. I wouldn't have found that avenue myself. The things you mention do not disgust me, save if I imagine them happening to me.
According to some researches reason did not 'evolve' to provide us with truth or better understandings, but evolved to compete with each other for sexual favors.
People Argue Just to Win - Scholars Assert http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
According to an ancient mystic paradigm; reason is a divine property of the universe which is reflected in the mind of men; called the Logos and the personal Logos. Reason always aims toward truth but is stifled and misdirected by the corruption of the heart. Reason is then employed to justify and serve the heart, if the heart desires fame then reason will be employed in the acquisition of fame. Never-the-less reason for the sake of reason or truth alone, is destined to reveal secret truth.
Okay... I would debate your last statement about Hume being out-dated, but you do make that difficult by abandoning the discussion. I guess I'm just supposed to swallow your authority and obey your directives?
I don't really feel special sharing it. But not everybody is a "superior-brained AI" and some people need to be exposed to things before they can absorb them. Kind of like theories of learning and memory in which it is generally held that NOTHING we think is original, but all of it is learned from prior experiences. David Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding comes to mind.
"We are apt to imagine that we could discover these effects by the mere operation of our reason, without experience. We fancy, that were we brought on a sudden into this world, we could at first have inferred that one Billiard-ball would communicate motion to another upon impulse; and that we needed not to have waited for the event, in order to pronounce with certainty concerning it. Such is the influence of custom, that, where it is strongest, it not only covers our natural ignorance, but even conceals itself, and seems not to take place, merely because it is found in the highest degree." - David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Full Text: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8echu10h.htm
Whenever I see a public disagreement I do my own dialectic method of discovery on it. I found an interesting discussion between a Doctor specializing in vascular diseases and a hydraulic engineer. Apparently the valves in the leg veins are failed-open which results in too much back-pressure which forces the veins down the leg. It is generally a congenital condition and not linked to cycling or other forms of exercise. However, increased vasculation could hypothetically exacerbate varicose veins.
I may be wrong on a few or all points; it is not the gospel truth as far as I know. But what I discovered.
Do you want me to? I could easily write 10,000+ words on nociception and noxious stimuli, and how spiritual progress almost always rides on the back of the darkest despair.
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. Khalil Gibran
I do not understand why you (plural) think you are morally superior people or why you think you are ethically justified in saying the things you say and stultifying discussion. Let's recap for a moment:
Robert Birming posted an article on Zen practice; which I am supposing means something to Robert and he's not just posting it randomly. I've noticed that certain Neatorama staff have certain interests and their posts are largely within the range of their interests. Robert Birming, Alex and Miss Cellania are frequently posting articles relating to psychology and pop culture. So I suspect they have some interest in these subjects.
Employing a loving and considerate attitude toward the author Leo Babatua we must be in a position to understand his point of view and offer up some thoughtful opinions. Is that what you do? Let's see how you treat Leo.
Red Bunny: I wonder if this guy has ever had to sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day? I'm sure he'd be just oozing with joy.
[Someone who apparently doesn't know the first thing about Zazen and so inspires us to imagine a scenario that flies in the face of Zen practice. Alternatively; someone who didn't put in the time to understand the point of view they were criticising.]
Chris B: I want some of whatever he is smoking
[The first commentor to equivocate Zazen and enlightenment with drug use. Another example of a person who doesn't seek to understand or even to discuss the subject but engages in ridiculing Leo instead.]
Craig: If you're ALWAYS happy, then happiness has no meaning. Yin and yang; you can't have one without the other.
[Here is a rudimentary example of trying to having a semi-rational discussion, however Craig failed to understand Taoist philosophy before stating his opinion on it.]
VonSkippy: Sounds like pretty much every drug user I've ever talked to.
[Second example of someone equivocating spirituality with drug-use and not addressing Leo's points in a careful, loving, respectful, or even rational manner.]
So you are all hypocrites if you want me to treat you with the kind of love and respect that you deny to Leo and myself. You don't say anything of logical significance, it is just mudslinging and fallacious reasoning. I'm sorry I tried to talk about actual Taoist and Zen philosophy. That seemed to be what the OP was about, but I guess it was really just an excuse for you guys to be insulting, aloof and indignant.
Then again, maybe it is just Canadians who use them...
Whereas, you watch British comedy like Fry and Laurie and it quickly becomes apparent that speech is a kind of artform in Britain. Stephen Fry's humor almost always boils down to a creative use of language. Personally, I enjoy the clarity of thought I get from a diverse language. Now, I dunno, just saying, the American culture ethos has always been a bit nitty-gritty and doesn't seem to pay much attention to detail or style.
Men are Sadists
Women are Masochists
Just generally speaking; women are attracted to sadistic behavior in men. They want a man with power, influence, control, and a small circle of concern (mainly her).
Men are attracted to naivity, innocence, "purity", "divinity". They want something which they can take ownership and control over.
But there is a vicarious role reversal that occurs too; where the woman actually seeks control and power over the man through her aesthetic charm and need of constant approval, she winds up trapping the man in a mesh of necessary conditions to satisfy her insecurity. So he becomes the submissive one, submitting to her demands, all-the-while maintaining the appearance of the sadist. Meanwhile she continues to appear to be the masochist who is dominated by the man.
"The speed at which the nurses remove the
bandages is almost always too fast for me. They hold on to the edge of a bandage and
quickly strip it off. This method causes me a short, but intense pain as the bandage is
removed, followed by a longer and more muffled pain. "
My apologies
Okay, I can see that being another source of digust. I wouldn't have found that avenue myself. The things you mention do not disgust me, save if I imagine them happening to me.
According to some researches reason did not 'evolve' to provide us with truth or better understandings, but evolved to compete with each other for sexual favors.
People Argue Just to Win - Scholars Assert
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
According to an ancient mystic paradigm; reason is a divine property of the universe which is reflected in the mind of men; called the Logos and the personal Logos. Reason always aims toward truth but is stifled and misdirected by the corruption of the heart. Reason is then employed to justify and serve the heart, if the heart desires fame then reason will be employed in the acquisition of fame. Never-the-less reason for the sake of reason or truth alone, is destined to reveal secret truth.
Sure thing - anyway it's worth checking out Ariely's story. Link: http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/mypain.pdf
I don't really feel special sharing it. But not everybody is a "superior-brained AI" and some people need to be exposed to things before they can absorb them. Kind of like theories of learning and memory in which it is generally held that NOTHING we think is original, but all of it is learned from prior experiences. David Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding comes to mind.
"We are apt to imagine that we could discover these effects by the mere operation of our reason, without experience. We fancy, that were we brought on a sudden into this world, we could at first have inferred that one Billiard-ball would communicate motion to another upon impulse; and that we needed not to have waited for the event, in order to pronounce with certainty concerning it. Such is the influence of custom, that, where it is strongest, it not only covers our natural ignorance, but even conceals itself, and seems not to take place, merely because it is found in the highest degree." - David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Full Text: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8echu10h.htm
I may be wrong on a few or all points; it is not the gospel truth as far as I know. But what I discovered.
Do you want me to? I could easily write 10,000+ words on nociception and noxious stimuli, and how spiritual progress almost always rides on the back of the darkest despair.
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.
Khalil Gibran
Robert Birming posted an article on Zen practice; which I am supposing means something to Robert and he's not just posting it randomly. I've noticed that certain Neatorama staff have certain interests and their posts are largely within the range of their interests. Robert Birming, Alex and Miss Cellania are frequently posting articles relating to psychology and pop culture. So I suspect they have some interest in these subjects.
Employing a loving and considerate attitude toward the author Leo Babatua we must be in a position to understand his point of view and offer up some thoughtful opinions. Is that what you do? Let's see how you treat Leo.
Red Bunny: I wonder if this guy has ever had to sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day? I'm sure he'd be just oozing with joy.
[Someone who apparently doesn't know the first thing about Zazen and so inspires us to imagine a scenario that flies in the face of Zen practice. Alternatively; someone who didn't put in the time to understand the point of view they were criticising.]
Chris B: I want some of whatever he is smoking
[The first commentor to equivocate Zazen and enlightenment with drug use. Another example of a person who doesn't seek to understand or even to discuss the subject but engages in ridiculing Leo instead.]
Craig: If you're ALWAYS happy, then happiness has no meaning. Yin and yang; you can't have one without the other.
[Here is a rudimentary example of trying to having a semi-rational discussion, however Craig failed to understand Taoist philosophy before stating his opinion on it.]
VonSkippy: Sounds like pretty much every drug user I've ever talked to.
[Second example of someone equivocating spirituality with drug-use and not addressing Leo's points in a careful, loving, respectful, or even rational manner.]
So you are all hypocrites if you want me to treat you with the kind of love and respect that you deny to Leo and myself. You don't say anything of logical significance, it is just mudslinging and fallacious reasoning. I'm sorry I tried to talk about actual Taoist and Zen philosophy. That seemed to be what the OP was about, but I guess it was really just an excuse for you guys to be insulting, aloof and indignant.
Exactly, most of you who criticize me so harshly wind up saying that you don't even read what I write. I don't think you could be any more ignorant.