Yup totally! Just seems like a stretch from “cooking food is just making protein easier to digest” to, “chemically synthesizing elements that generally exist in a abundant state in the normal food source of an animal from vegetable sources and fortifying a plant based alternative that only gives macro nutrients we currentlt understand to be necessary for life”.

That being said, if any plant based hormones were cheaper than the meat based alternative (all meat based cat food is also fortified in this way), the industry would switch to plant based and not tell anyone.

Why? I mean I know, I just want to hear your explanation.

That’s not the definition of a strawman. We can discuss this philosophy from outside of it. That’s a thing that’s ok to do!

But you did construct a strawman which I addressed. Anecdotally the bit about pets for vegans being “companions” came directly from the person who posted the initial thread calling out rookie (which by the way, rookie seems like kinda of a jerk and probably shouldn’t be making decisions like these).

An animal is incapable of providing any consent, they are incapable of understanding the ethical choices a vegan may make, or the reasons behind it. The fact that instead of many viable alternatives, they selfishly choosing to keep an animal that would need to have those choices made for them is an ethical problem in their own philosophy.

These vegans choose to keep a cute kitty or puppy, even old and sick kitties and puppies are cute and rewarding, for selfish reasons. If you truly need to keep an animal, keep a vegan pet. Then you don’t need to participate in the food system, and a non-vegan pet owner can provide for the animal best suited to their lifestyle.

Like there is an understanding that engaging in the meat industry, even on the fringes, perpetuates that industry hurting animals. The same is true for pets, even good pet owners engage and support a system where by animals are exploited and hurt, even if it’s not THEIR animal. I don’t see why this is so hard, honestly.

I think that’s the point, the ethically vegan argument is not to own a pet that eats meat, and it’s odd these particular vegans in the channel couldn’t see it, and all the non vegans were pointing it out.

Pet ownership in general is not vegan, even if you gaslight yourself into calling them companions.

Doing more research, candidates that were picked from contested conventions are absolutely less likely to win in historically.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/04/contested-presidential-conventions-and-why-parties-try-to-avoid-them/

So close enough with a candidate as strong with his party as Trump.

Actually the presidential candidate was selected on the day of the convention up until around 1970. They had conventions that would last days, they would lock the doors until a candidate was picked. Then ideally everyone stacked behind the final candidate.

I’m pretty sure there was actually almost a contested convention in like 1980. So no, this is objectively wrong and a bit of a modern convention.

Dude, absofuckinglutely. Robert’s was never not on Trump’s side, he just bided his time until the right decisions came through, like the one that makes the president a de-facto kingship based in court opinions with a huge amount of freshly minted psychos as judges.

Bold of you to assume this person has friends!

There’s this hilarious story about a time where this dude named Nadav who was working for Weedmaps at the time got B-Real way too high on dabs before a 4/20 show. Just fucking delightful.

https://youtu.be/HYgyQoljPLA

No, they do, human trafficking is especially bad in wealthy middle Eastern countries where indentured servants are regularly abused, raped, killed.

India in particular is having a huge increases in violence against women that doubled over the last decade, that not specific to rural areas at all.

What about all that shit that was and it’s happening to Iranian women and girls, getting brutally raped and killed by the police.

Pretty common actually.

Unlikely, yes. More likely an implementation of principles in ways we just don’t have reference for in documentation, we just discovered that Roman concrete was mixed hot with quick lime. This shit always seems crazy until we figure it out.

Although I don’t see anyone saying there were as low as 1,600 workers on the great pyramid. So you right to question that one.

Actually I bet this is where that number came from lol:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46485163

I’m not even sure where you’ve developed that strawman from what the dude said, his original statement or his future back and forth with you. He said that the brute force argument isn’t the best one based on research like the water experimentation on dry sand. That doesn’t mean they didn’t use brute force in labor, just that it may have been supplemented by techniques we’re still investigating. He’s not saying they used magic.

Now we know they not only had a easy source of water, we know they had enough water to supplement the power of human labor. You just really wanted to argue so you focused on whatever points you could find disagreement.

The whole argument is based on you really wanting to be unequivocally right about your understanding of how something was built when the article you posted is about a literal groundbreaking discovery that may change our understanding of how it was built. Just seems silly on this one I guess.

Yeah, if that’s your take away I guess posting a pictograph and saying “nuh uh” being the crux of your argument on a body of study who’s modern history goes back to sprinkling mummy dust on your breakfast makes perfect sense.

Keep up this good!

I think you might be one of those expert on everything types, it works really well with political garbage, but when you’re talking about historical studies of the Egyptian old kingdom that they base on modern calculations of physics using pictographs as a reference… Like it’s just sounds silly I guess.

You are arguing for a heterodox interpretation of labor based on pictures drawn by the ruling party that has potentially tens of thousands of people building a giant stone monument, when modern scientists JUST discovered a river they only JUST realized might be there.

Like you just really really need to be right about a field of study that’s had like 15 sea changes over the last couple hundred years. It’s odd!

Wow, you really got bodied in this debate. This dude came with actual info and you kinda went full debate bro on him.

I’m sure I’ll see you picking up some wins in another thread.