Be the first to like this.
4 comment(s). Last comment by DickyMe 2 months ago
Posted by DickyMe > 2 months ago | Report Abuse
My gas stove is "Butterfly" brand.
Will that be banned?
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse
On the safe side, replace it with Rinnai. Unlike Butterfly, Rinnai offers even heat distribution and high precision in flame control. The stoves often come with advanced features like simmer settings, automatic ignition, and dual/triple ring burners for more cooking flexibility. Rinnai typically incorporates advanced safety features like flame failure detection (automatically shuts off gas when the flame goes out), child lock, and heat-resistant surfaces.
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse
Also avoid Rainbow brand
No result.
1
2
save malaysia!
3
Good Articles to Share
4
THE INVESTMENT APPROACH OF CALVIN TAN
5
Good Articles to Share
6
Good Articles to Share
Private banks boost Hong Kong hiring to woo rich Chinese clients
7
Good Articles to Share
8
Good Articles to Share
#
Stock
Score
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock
Time
Signal
Duration
Stock
Time
Signal
Duration
CS Tan
4.9 / 5.0
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse
The banning of *Butterfly* can be argued as prejudiced for several reasons. First, the decision appears to stem from a misunderstanding or an overreaction to the film’s themes. The movie delves into sensitive issues surrounding faith, existential questions, and identity, which are important for fostering open discussion in a diverse society. By banning the film, authorities might have acted based on preconceived notions about the supposed threats to religious orthodoxy, rather than allowing space for artistic expression and critical reflection. Second, the ban disproportionately affects the freedom of expression of artists and filmmakers, silencing perspectives that might challenge dominant narratives. The reaction seems prejudiced against non-mainstream views, particularly those that question or explore religious beliefs in unconventional ways. This suppression signals a bias against diversity of thought, pushing cultural conformity and discouraging exploration of more nuanced or critical views of religion and society. Lastly, the ban might reflect broader societal prejudices, where content that deviates from established religious or cultural norms is swiftly labeled as offensive or dangerous. This reflects a prejudicial assumption that society cannot engage with complex themes without moral panic, reinforcing a paternalistic attitude that limits public discourse. Instead of facilitating dialogue, the ban projects a distrust of the public's ability to engage maturely with challenging material, underscoring a prejudiced approach to controlling cultural narratives.