hamax

Oh no, some fats and fibers.

So blending a fish and pressing it back together with some flour is the most processed thing you can think of? If that's the case, maybe there is nothing wrong with processed foods.

I wouldn't really call this completely processes. It's just soy flour mechanically processed with some seasoning. I'd put it into the same category as fish sticks or chicken nuggets. Not something I would eat every day, but if someone wants to do it, they'll be fine.

It's not.

Who owns all the media organizations in Italy? Black people? If not, their power to respond and argue is severely constrained

Just B12 and sometimes D3 and omega (I'm really bad at remembering it). I eat enough tofu to get all the iron I need as a man :)

Recently I've been tracking proteins more closely but reaching recommended levels has never been an issue.

So just normal police work.

There is nothing about moving the border checks in the cited article so I'm not sure what this person is talking about.

Google adx actually discloses clearing prices for auctions where you participate in, so this is even stranger complaint.

https://developers.google.com/authorized-buyers/rtb/request-...

So both UK and US are bad guys since they're blocking all exports?

Omnivores get most of their b12 from supplements too. The difference is that the supplements are given to animals and not directly to humans.

So if you want to be more open about where all the nutritions come from, we should also disclose everything we feed to animals.

Or alternatively, we can simply start enriching some basic foods like plant based milk with b12 and d3.

The argument has never been that it's only ok for humans to live if we do zero harm. It's obvious that we can't do that. And that's fine. Human life is worth much more than anything else for us humans, so eating something to survive is necessary and ethical. Same logic applies also to vaccines that need animal products in production. I would prefer if they wouldn't, but I'm not judging anyone for taking it.

What we're talking about here is that simply because steak is s bit tastier than tofu or saitan isn't good enough reason to slaughter 50 billion animals per year and destroying a good amount of environment while doing it.

This is a really strange argument. Even though you wouldn't exist if not for your parents, but you would still probably agree that they shouldn't have you for dinner?

Except for the cow.

Most omnivores get their B12 from supplements given to livestock.

It's the same supplements but with extra steps.

You really don't have to defend your masculinity to me.

I promise that I, or anyone else, won't think anything less of you if you'll replace steak with quinoa burger from time to time. It will be good for you and the environment!

Have a good one.

Who would you call if your house would have a mouse problem? Exterminator or IT support?

I guess things can have multiple definitions and we can use context to distinguish between them?

Exactly like with plant based meat, soy milk and veggie burger, right?

Sigh...

This is THE original definition. Language later evolved and people started using the word meat to mostly mean animal flash. But that's just proof that language evolves over time and now it's evolving again to include broader range of food.

But in any case, I'm sure you've heard of meat of a fruit or nut.

You'd eat a 3D printed steak but not soy or wheat protein that you probably already eat multiple times a week?

The modern definition of meat meaning animal flash evolved from the old more broad definition. And now it's evolving again to again include plant based meats.

It's how the language works and I'm not sure why would anyone be against using the broader definition when it's useful.

I don't see anyone complaining about coconut milk and peanut butter.

Why do you want to change the definition of the word meat?

Funny enough, this is the original definition. You are the one using the new "fancy" definitions.

Wiki: The word meat comes from the Old English word mete, which referred to food in general. The term is related to mad in Danish, mat in Swedish and Norwegian, and matur in Icelandic and Faroese, which also mean 'food'. The word mete also exists in Old Frisian (and to a lesser extent, modern West Frisian) to denote important food, differentiating it from swiets (sweets) and dierfied (animal feed).

Definition of meat by merriam-webster:

a: FOOD especially : solid food as distinguished from drink

b: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell)

The same as with milk. Nobody had problems with coconut milk until dairy lobby started fearing plant milk competition. And when one buys oat yogurt they know exactly what they'll get and what to compare it with. Or do you think fat free or lactose free cow milk yogurt shouldn't be called as such, since it's its own thing?

How we name things is important and naming things by their appearance and function is completely fine and useful and has been done since ever. Things like turkey ham or turkey bacon aren't new inventions.

Definition of meat by merriam-webster:

a: FOOD especially : solid food as distinguished from drink

b: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell)

If you want to check out what bluekai knows about your browser: https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/

What is the difference between a white supremacist and someone who acts exactly like one but ironically?

Most crops are consumed by livestock, not humans. So by eating crops directly you save more animals than just the ones you don't consume.

Most crops are used to feed the animals that are later slaughtered. A tiny amount is directly consumed by humans. So you're not actually reducing the number of animals killed by eating them.

This is often repeated but the data is way more noisy than this comment implies.

For example this chart for Asian countries does have Iran on one side and Japan on the other, but it also have Korea way higher than Japan and Cambodia way lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#/media/Fi...

In europe Norway has the fewest women in stem and Croatia the highest, but there are a lot of cases where the correlation isn't there. Hungary is very low and Luxembourg is very high. Ireland and Italy are high but Slovenia is low.

https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/...

Correlation definitely exists but there are a lot of other factors at play too.