Soup of the Day: Whiskey

 But if you ask people who think about things, the answer is vague. Killing a hibernating bear would just feel… impolite? You can’t fucking shoot a man when he’s sleeping, that’s just fucking rude. It’s just not the right thing to do.

 Long before hunting laws were established in Finland, you couldn’t kill a sleeping bear, and what commands you is something older than law: tradition. Even at a time when hunting was a matter of life and death, and a bear fighting for its life is mainly a matter of death, you just didn’t kill a hibernating bear, you have to wake it up first. Hunters risked their lives, the lives of their brothers and everyone in the hunting party, who were friends, family and men that they loved, to give the bear a fighting chance.

 In the modern time, the hunting season of bears is in the summer, for the warmest summer months. There are many reasons for why they are allowed to tread safely in autumn and to sleep in peace through the cold months, almost all of which are rational and scientific, and do not touch the old traditions.

 Old faith says a living thing has many souls - henki, luonto, itse. Plants only have one - the one that wills them to grow. Animals have two, both the spark of life and nature that enables them to act. A human being also has the third, one that makes them a person, personality, itse, literally “self”. But the soul that travels in your dreams is not the soul that defines a human - animals have that one as well. When your dog runs in her sleep, her soul is elsewhere, where a dog is needed.

For example: I can't read any ABO AUs set in England or France because while I can suspend my disbelief far enough for a gender trinary set up, I can't suspend it enough to believe those two countries would still be distinct entities in a alternate history where Richard the Lionheart could have impregnated Philip II.

If there was a viable dynastic future with Richard, Philip would have climbed him like an oak and dragged him to the altar if he had to. It's a match that makes perfect sense from both their points of view: Philip gets Aquitaine back under French rule, the best general in Europe on his council, and a powerful check on the Angevins... then unexpectedly (after Henry the Young bites it) the entire Kingdom of England for his Capetian dynasty. Richard meanwhile gets to stick it to his father, secure Aquitaine's prosperity, and gets the leverage to start pushing for his mother's release. Then when Henry kicks the bucket Richard doesn't actually have to be King of England in anything but name: Philip can run the countries and unify the Crowns and what not while Richard runs off to go Crusading.

Plus they also like, loved each other and stuff and being able to get to be together long term instead of being torn apart by politics would have been cool. But I'm mainly obsessed with the historical and dynastic implications.

In this AU, it’s unlikely that an Anglo-Frank union could last due to differences in succession laws between the two realms. What would happen if an Alpha died without an heir? Would Betas be treated similarly to Alphas for succession purposes? Could succession pass through Beta or even Omega lines? Succession laws were quite difficult to change, with modifications to royal succession often resulting in civil and/or international wars.

Instead, Freire proposes that teachers and students act as co-creators of knowledge, where students become active participants in their own learning through questions and dialogue. Teachers are also open to changing their understanding of topics in the process of critical dialogue - the goal is not "student learns Fact A and memorizes it as presented," but instead the goal is the knowledge itself, discovered collaboratively by teacher and student, who are acting with empathy and respect towards each other. This also starts the process of the oppressed being able and empowered to question structures of power, take agency, and actively participate in the transformation of society.

- the menu at a restaurant is not an ingredient list you can use to create new dishes we could hypothetically make for you instead of the choices on the menu

- we do not have omelets on the menu because we do not make or serve omelets

- yes, i know we have eggs on the menu, but we still do not have omelets.

- yes, i realize omelets are eggs, but not all eggs are omelets, and the eggs we serve are not omelets.

- you cannot out-logic me so that i cave in and ring in an omelet for you. i am better at arguing than you are.

- there are no omelets here. there have not been, and will not be, omelets here. if you want an omelet you will need to go somewhere else.

- i can also promise that you do not want an omelet cooked by line cooks who have not been trained how to make omelets. because we don't sell omelets.

- no, i am not going to single-handedly put service on pause for the next twenty minutes while three cooks google how to make an omelet and then proceed to fuck up multiple omelets that our kitchen is not set up to prepare, so you can have an omelet.

-and we both know you'd bitch if it takes longer than six minutes to come out anyway.

- no, you may not just go back into the kitchen and make yourself an omelet. the line cooks do not take kindly to trespassing. also, what the hell.

- i hear that you want an omelet. that does not change the fact that we do not offer omelets. if you want to eat an omelet, you will need to go to another restaurant that does have omelets on the menu. this is not negotiable.

- i am the manager.