zapatos

"Number" is a word. A noun specifically.

You completely dodged the question. That's a very dishonest way to debate.

I find that people often get confused about time because they think time is some deep, complex, mystical thing. It's not. It's a measurement. When we look around we feel the need to measure things. How big is that flatscreen tv and will it fit in my living room? How bright should the lightbulb be that I put in my bedroom? How long does it take to drive to the grocery store? How hot is it outside today? What current do I need to install so that I can run my new electric stove? They are just measurements we use to describe our world. As @swansont pointed out, time is simply another measurement, just like length is a measurement. Try not to make it more complex than it needs to be. If you are not confused by temperature, you shouldn't be confused by time either.

I mean, as I said, that meat tastes great to many people, despite your claim that "It doesn't, actually." Pretending that you've proven your point by saying 'meat needs to be cooked first' is a bit ridiculous. That is similar to responding to a claim that one can travel to a friend's house by car by saying "You can't, actually. A car needs to have petrol added first to run", expecting us to believe that you've proven a car cannot transport you anywhere.

You mean it's no longer meat when cooked and seasoned?

Making assumptions about why someone uses the DV is prone to error. I mean, how do you know what someone is thinking when they push that button? Some surly rabbit may have objected to Peterkin's very first sentence where he told LuckyR without any qualification whatsoever that they were wrong about what they liked. It turns out that something tasting good is not an individual preference but a universal constant. LuckyR has just learned his whole life was a fraud because while he THOUGHT meat tasted good, Peterkin just informed him that in reality, meat does NOT taste good. How is LuckyR to deal with that? He's going to have to reexamine all his likes and dislikes. Does he actually hate ice cream? Was kale really a tasty snack all along? And what about the rest of us? Was I mistaken when I thought smoked chicken wings were a gift from god? Did I waste my money when on my wedding anniversary I ordered a filet mignon? Oh, the humanity...

Mine too. And my chickens.

That may be what you meant, but again, your language is saying something else. Since one cannot distinguish between what you say and what you mean your arguments don't offer much of value.

You are generalizing again.

Finally we have the recipe for the perfectly boiled egg. I've been doing it wrong all my life. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44172-024-00334-w

Of course. But that applies to nearly every enterprise on the globe. Why single out meat production? No one said it was. Again, you are lumping all enterprises together. I don't understand this statement. Legislators create laws that apply to all steps in the human food chain. That's a shame as they provide a good method to lessen our dependence on mass produced meat. In the US there are about 12 million household who have backyard chickens. They don't take up much space and can be grown by a significant portion of the population. In addition, about 6 million deer are harvested in the US each year. I don't wish to mislead so I want to make clear that I do buy plenty of food. But we do grow much of our own vegetables and fruits, keep bees, eat our own chickens, eggs, wild game, fish, collect walnuts, hickory nuts and pecans, wild grapes, pawpaws, mushrooms, wildflower seeds, generate a lot of fiber, cut our own firewood, etc. Today I've been making maple syrup. We trade with family members who are similarly minded. But variety is the spice of life and my wife is a great cook so we do buy food but probably much less than the average American. Commercial production of meat is not an all or nothing proposition. Cutting back by using viable alternative methods and modified diets can allow us to continue to eat meat and not feel bad about it. Humans will always have an impact on the environment. We simply need to make sure that impact can be absorbed without causing to much pain for the rest of the world.

My problem with his responses has to do with the fact he seems to find meat production as a whole is inefficient, bad for the environment, is poor use of the land, uses more water, etc. based on some of the western mass production methods. That is cherry picking poor methodology and suggesting that it thus applies to ALL methods of meat production. People have eaten animal protein for thousands of years without ruining the environment and those methodologies should not be lumped in with, for example, modern beef production. I get all the protein I need out of my backyard without taking any up any agricultural land or water other than rain. I can't even have a successful garden without pumping water from the ground. And casting doubt on solutions ("you could make the slaughterhouses efficient and relatively humane - but would the people likely to be in charge make that a priority?") by suggesting bad actors won't follow the rules, is IMO over the top. It is a cheap trick to make something seem bad without really saying it is bad, and is a trick that could be done just as easily with the agriculture production methods. ('I suppose you could treat agricultural workers as human beings but would the people in charge make that a priority?') Some modern meat production has a lot of problems. Meat from local sources, the ocean, wild game, free range cattle on grasslands, and many other methods should not be lumped to together with cattle feed lots and inhumane animal treatment. There is plenty of meat consumed in the world right now that doesn't cause any more harm than other functions of humans living their lives.

Your over the top responses indicate emotion is playing a large part in your interactions.

That's a natural result of not deleting them as new ones come up.

You've already made up your mind. No need for me to try to reason with you.