Comments by "Alphabet Inc." (@official_alphabet_inc) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, sure, but you can wage war on someone's land while defending your own land. Quite literally since "your land" is "someone's land", and secondly, aggression can be used for defensive gains (but it's seldom the best tactic), e.g. if someone pulls a Glock on you, you can blow their hand off with a shotgun before they pull the trigger.
Edit: And thirdly, the land in question (the southern part of Ukraine, and in general, the entire territory of Ukraine) is disputed by the warring parties, which also pokes holes in your meaningless sentence, Hmar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OriginalCinemaVideo Idk what Soilent wrote, but I'm unsure if you should attack anyone's argument construction.
Firstly, just because something is new, innovative and/or advanced does not make it better. Technology has it's uses, but it has as many flaws as humans themselves. I'm sure you use some ancient piece of technology when you have to insert a nail into a piece of wood. Simplicity is key, and TikTok sucks.
Also, I'm terribly confused what you mean by taking "the longest route possible out of our food chain path just to kill an animal". Yeah, sure, we can consume and get nutrients from paprikas, kale and maybe even grass and bark, but our bodies absorbs the full amount of nutrients in those to varying degrees. A great benefit of eating meat is that it's very efficiently absorbed. I believe it's 100% (or at least close to 100%) bioavailable for our guts. So the animal extracts the nutrients efficiently from whatever it has been eating for millions of years, and then we eat it. Instead of us eating a ton of grass all day and still losing weight. What I'm trying to say is that humans eating meat seems like the shortest possible route in the food chain, not the longest. But I might've misunderstood this point though.
1
-
@purplespaceship2417 Those two studies you mentioned (without providing for the source) were two pretty selective in what they were testing. I wasn't talking about amino acide absorption in chicken vs a "plant based alternative", or protein absorption in red meat vs soy protein.
Also, you show me the source to these "countless" of cancer studies, and I'll pick out the flaw from every single one of them. It's most often how they measure, and then how they interpret the results. When they're doing a self report study, they never differentiate between the source, quality or type of meat. There's no denying that "above average consumers of red meat" to a larger extent get their food from McDonalds instead of expensive steaks from free range cows.There's no denying that vegans and vegetarians to a larger extent eat healthier, are more physically active, out in nature, smoke less, drink less alcohol etc. than the red meat eating group.
I've never seen a study on meat vs alternatives who has tried to take such factors into account.
Your very selective argumentation is familiar, but sadly, very effective for most people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1