Falling3

People made the claim _while_ ignoring the evidence. And as I went on to argue, if you really want to play it safe and assume plant sentience, you would still adopt a plant-based diet.

The OP did not make a good point - they made a Nirvana Fallacy. And your analogy in no way captures that argument anyway.

Plants are not beings under any standard usage of the word. While plants certainly communicate and show some level of computational processing, there is no evidence they have subjective experiences. There is a very clearly line to be drawn between plants and animals.

And if that's not a compelling enough counterargument, there are two additional issues with trying to conflate plants and animals in this context. First, it takes far more plants to support an omnivorous diet than a plant-based diet. Second, many plant-based products are obtainable without having to harm the plant.

There's no way to sell eggs and turn a profit without killing hens. Their production wanes as they get older and they are killed to make way for the new generation. This has nothing to do with demand for meat. Your parent comment is right; these are not "no-kill". At best, they're "less-kill".

Of course not. But do we expect companies to stick to the decisions they made as startups forever?

The original comment referenced Trump's anti-mask attitude. His position was never just that you shouldn't be forced into wearing a mask; he was against masks period. He refused to wear one publicly while mocking others for wearing them. He explicitly turned masks into a political issue claiming that people wore them just to express their disapproval of him. He even refused to wear a mask while touring a mask factory.

So again, this _clearly_ had nothing to do with freedom or totalitarianism.

It had absolutely nothing to do with freedom or rejection of totalitarianism.

He could have easily encouraged people to wear a mask and set an example by wearing one himself.

But you're right that it was about political value. Or at least perceived political value.

Yea, completely agree. I think context is very important here. We should not be making the same arguments for a one-person side business and a company with 400MM in revenue. Slack really can't stand on the arguments presented in the article.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that there are sites that provide huge utility in exchange for their size. No one is suggesting we google maps should clock in at less than a MB. But the point is that there's a continuing trend of websites' sizes growing much faster than their functionality - often with the former to the detriment of the latter.

Well, no. Laws are only created by Congress. Regulatory agencies can create non-trivial policies, and you might want to argue that the distinction between a regulatory policy and law is minimal or non-existent. But regulatory agencies are never what proponents of the deep state are discussing in my experience. Likewise with judges - and if we wanted to somehow include judges in the deep state, we have the problem that Trump has at this point appointed more federal judges in a single term than any other president and more SCOTUS judges than any other president. If judges are part of the deep state, Trump can not in any way be said to be fighting against it.

Does anyone know if this site was recently put together or if it's been around all along? WHOIS says the domain was registered back in '14. I love _why's writings and largely credit him with getting me excited about using Ruby back when I was in college. Really nice to be reminded of his work.

First, your argument is different from the comment to which I replied. Whether Trump _is_ a racist and whether people have reasons for believing he is a racist that they can articulate are two completely different things.

>I use the classic and correct definition of racism

I really don't have any interest in debating what definition of racism is better - certainly not which one is "correct". But dictionaries and definitions are descriptive and subject to change; they're not normative. If your argument hinges on a different definition of a word, you're no longer have a good faith discussion with someone.

> Trump "taking on the deep state" isn't even a conspiracy theory, he literally made that a major part of his 2016 campaign

You're misframing this. The conspiracy theory is not that Trump is taking on the deep state; it's the existence of the deep state to begin with.

>If deep state/swamp/etc is interpreted as a vague reference to the Washington/New York professional classes who populate government in huge numbers and tend to share very similar worldviews and beliefs

Speaking of grotesque distortions of the truth, that is not what the "deep state" has ever referred to. It's always been, by definition, a conspiracy theory. It generally posits that the country is actually run by a group o unelected individuals in secret that orchestrate events in this country up to and including the selection of presidents.

How is overestimating the effect of money on election outcomes a conspiracy theory?

Yea... it's so weird how Trump keeps making these, at best, ambiguous statements where he has to explain later - sometimes days later, sometimes never - what he really meant. And really weird that, during that time, neo-nazis, white supremacists, white nationals, and other groups earnestly quote those statements and publicly support him. But I guess the weirdest part is actually anyone who holds Trump accountable for those statements. /s

Everyone I know who claims Trump is racist can quickly and easily point to specific policies, quotes, and actions - both before and during his presidency.

This meme that people don't have evidence for their issues with Trump is not only false, it's comedically ironic.

Impossible has had ongoing supply issues. My city is very vegan friendly and had at least a handful of restaurants service impossible burgers that disappeared when Burger King rolled their impossible whopper out. There may be other factors, but I suspect this was part of the decision.

No. It's addressing a nonsensical claim in the parent comment. It is relevant in the context of that comment. And it's no more an appeal to emotion that the original comment was - which is to say not at all.

You do understand the end state of effectively all animal farming is slaughter - right? This culling does absolutely nothing to make an already incredibly cruel process any more cruel.

> anything pro-Trump being consistently flagged which is so fitting of your liberal friends.

That's simply not true. There are pro-Trump comments here that are not being flagged or downvoted into oblivion. But they're the substantive comments that aren't full of baseless claims about Trump being the victim of conspiracies and abuse.

The president is the face of leadership for the country. The way they address the country and the things they say is unquestionably a huge part of the presidency.

With all of his commentary about cities like Portland, one of the Proud Boys' favorite targets, there is almost no chance he's never heard of them. And with the number of documented, public lies made by him, why would you ever take a statement like that at face value?

You think his full quote that implies just _some_ Mexican-Americans and Mexicans living in America aren't rapists, drug dealers and criminals is acceptable? Or remotely factually accurate?

Please stop repeating the same comment, silently editing it, and deleting it when it's downvoted? You're very clearly not going to get any substantive replies.

Biden won because people have legitimate issues with Trump. Deride it as "the propaganda machine" and other nonsense all you like. But this administration has a mind-boggling amount of documented fact-checked lies, clear nepotism, a history of censoring government agencies and intimidating federal employees who disagree, and putting out some of the most absurd propaganda we've seen in this country in modern history. It's astounding that this administration's chief complaints about the other side are always exemplified by the administration themselves. And people mindlessly repeat it without a shred of irony.

I don't disagree with you that this is horrible... but you do know what the "happy path" for animals on farms is - right?

Your argument hinges on the conflation of decriminalization and legalization. We approved the former, not the latter and that absolutely makes a difference.

Some additional bad news about water if you don't like solvents in your food.

RTN's focus on freedom of speech while condemning Mailchimp's actions is absolutely meant as an equivocation that tries to apply Constitutional protections in an argument where they don't apply.

And your comment does the exact same thing only more explicitly. The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. And it's very telling that people would prefer to focus on platforms regulating their content and "cancel culture" than addressing the very real and consistent attacks on the First Amendment by the current administration.

I sincerely wish we could have good faith discussions without false dichotomies.

How so? The thing that defied explanation was the fungi, not the twinki itself.