The eating of frogs legs has long been one of those disgusting habits we associate with the French, but it turns out that Britons beat them to it by 8000 years, as archaeological digs near Stonehenge have confirmed.
I’m not really surprised.
I’d be surprised if humans did not eat frogs before Europe was populated. Starving/injured alone person tries frog. Get strength back. Comes back to group/tribe tells them frogs can be eaten, not bad, like little birds.
Is that a fact? Disgusting? habit? huh? Believe the notion of disgusting lies with you and not with an others dietary choices.
Ohh right yea, yea that, too.
8000 years ago Briton was part of France, hence the people eating those frogs were French…
Frogs are plentiful it makes sense to eat them. They are free, good source of protein and easy to cook. Rather tasty when prepared right. The same as eating snakes.
No it wasn’t.
And worms too, so I hear.
Until around 6000BC what is now the British mainland was still connected by land to the main European continent. The melting ice sheet created the English channel…
Since France, as a state, was created around AD 800 (named after the Franks, who invaded the Roman province of Gaul around AD 400), it’s difficult to imagine how Britain could have been part of it 8000 years ago.
By the same measure there was no state of Briton 8000 years ago either, and so to talk of ‘Britons eating frogs legs 8000 years before the French’ is meaningless.
Thank you for once again falling into the most obvious trap I could have set for you though, it’s given me a chuckle in an otherwise rather dull day…
Britain is the name of the island, not the state. This is why I would not use the term “England” before about AD 400, but stick to geographical terms such as Britain, and Britons for its inhabitants.
Furthermore, your reasoning is flawed anyway. Even if we can apply the word “France” to the landmass formerly known as Gaul, does being joined to it make something part of it? Are not, for example, Spain and Germany joined to France? Does this mean they are part of it?
Some are toxic but many are not and quite healthy to eat. If you eat fish or chickens there is no reason to be squeamish about these other meats. They can be delicious if prepared right.
Today it is the name of the island and the state. You are simply wrong about this.
Back then it was the name for neither.
So you refuse to use a political term that meant nothing at the time we’re discussing, but you’re happy to use a geographical term that was similarly meaningless back then?
Why?
Back then they were. Now they are not, because we now have national borders.
This really is very simple, and the reason you’re struggling to grasp it has nothing to do with your relative lack of intellect and everything to do with having to admit that this thread you started off the back of a cheap and lazy newspaper story is completely meaningless and a waste of everyone’s time. It’s a psychological hurdle. If there’s something I can do to help you overcome that hurdle then say so, because I don’t like to see people struggling with simple concepts because of some silly emotional block.
The current British state takes its name from the island, not the other way round.
We don’t really know how long the island has been called Britain, though variations on the name certainly predate the Romans. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because its a perfectly acceptable convention to project geographical names backwards. E.g. it is ok to say that dinosaurs once roamed the earth, even though, as far as we know, dinosaurs never called it “earth”.
Britain was certainly once part of the European mainland, but was certainly never part of France, even if, by France, we are talking about the territory, rather than the state. It is absurd to suggest so, and your bluster in trying to cast doubt on my intelligence is an obvious attempt to divert attention from your ridiculously incorrect initial assertion.
This is not a response to the point she is making. YOu are just trying to find a potential food source that she must find disgusting and think that this disgust demonstrates that one should be disgusted by eating frogs. Disgust about what animals we eat is culturally determined but you are posting as if it objective.
You are disgusted by the idea of eating frogs, which is fine, but that all that’s going on.
I didn’t get that from what she said…
What did you get?
I could be wrong. It seemed like an appeal to disgust fallacy [smirks] to support another disgust.
Worms fit your criteria and even if, Kris, you think eating frogs is OK, worms are even more disgusting.
There’s really no need to take it that seriously. My OP was intended to be humorous.