1,735 karma · joined May 8, 2012
What liability is that? Genuinely asking because I've never heard that concern.
Seems like you glossed right over the most important part of their comment.
As long as it doesn't cause an existential crisis for the shoe, that doesn't sound like a downside.
1. I thought we were done pushing the complete protein thing? All the essential amino acids are essential (duh), but don't need to be consumed together like once thought. 2. With that said, soy is a complete protein. 3. Soy is also a legume.
We should absolutely be scrutinizing the fossil fuel industry. There's also no reason to _shift_ blame; both can be blamed at the same time. Ulterior motives behind the origin of carbon footprints does not negate the impact of our diets - particularly animal agriculture.
I don't think that's true. Most estimates of the peak Bison population I've seen put them at about 30 million. Some estimates are as high as 60 million. Today, we have about 94 million head of cattle down from a peak of 104.
Additionally, your linked article is incredibly unconvincing. It's riddled with Appeals to Nature and attempts to use a single instance of questionable behavior by a single company to poison the well for all alternatives to raising animals for slaughter.
I was a freshman when Facebook was introduced and required a .edu email. I've used it on and off since the beginning. I've made lots of friends there - both local and in other states/countries. It usually comes down to interactions in groups for niche interests. Why is this so striking to you?
Except that coma patients are not dependent on another specific individual to stay alive. If one needed your kidney to live, but you refused and they died, you would not be responsible for their death.
I don't know why people use DNA uniqueness as a qualifier of anything. Are identical twins and clones not alive? Heartbeats aren't a measure of life either and, at 6 weeks, there is still no functioning heart. So despite the colloquial usage of the term, there is no heartbeat.
It is not.
> If the law is immoral/unjust, take it to court. Otherwise shut up and deal with it. That's what civil rights leaders did back in the 60's.
Have you really not heard of civil disobedience?
For anyone with even a passing knowledge of symbolic logic, what you provided is clear. But the explanation wouldn't be required for those people who are going to be familiar with that Fallacy anyway. It's for those who aren't aware of it. In that case, the symbolic version is of no help and the longer verbal explanation is important.