Yeah when I was young most the weird anti vegetarian talking points that got thrown at me endlessly were things like ‘but if you were on an island without vegetation you’d have to eat meat’ but there was a point where it switched to bad nutrition ‘you can’t get protein from vegetables!’

I would point out that since I’ve never eaten meat and am healthy and strong that’s obviously not true and so they’d revert back to innane stuff like ‘mice and foxes get killed during harvesting’ or ‘plants can feel pain too’

Now though it’s evolved into weird alpha male podcast drivel, I hear stuff like ‘beans make you feminine’ and ‘we need beef protein to create masculine hormones’ and it’s always backed by complex jargon from people speaking like doctors but who can’t answer basic biology questions like what do the kidneys do.

‘I can ignore everything you say because broudcasting on AM means they’re ontological evil!’

Do you not understand that you’re every bit as crazy as the maga loons when you speak like that?

Imperialism? Are you just throwing words you once heard around or do you have a genuinely unhinged understanding of the world?

Yeah I think that normally boils down to a choice of having condescending assholes run your life and force you to jump through endless difficult hoops while massively restricting your life where they take away everything that helps (including pets, relationships, etc) then when people don’t want to put up with that the system washes its hands and says ‘see, they want to he homeless!’

It’s like someone telling you that if you don’t eat the chips they’ve pissed on you don’t ever want to eat again.

Sure there are people and groups that do want to live in a van or moving between worksites, friends and camps but generally they’re not often counted as homeless because they have a postal address (family, friends, or work) through which they’re registered - my brother would technically fall into this as he lives undocumented and illegally in a caravan behind his workplace but is legally registered at our parents, if he didn’t have somewhere to register his bank account, etc then he’d be classed as homeless though that’s verry different to being a ‘rough sleeper’

But yeah if the question asked was ‘do you want a safe and comfortable place to sleep where you’re allowed to live your own life’ then you’ll get a different response to ‘would you like to go to a kind of prison but it’s less safe, more annoying, and we’re taking your dog away, your gf or friends can’t come over, etc etc etc…’

Another wall to try and make it so only the rich corporations can make AI, what a shock.

This is what all the useful idiots bleating against ai have been working towards.

Automation has evolved a huge amount since the 90s, probably more than the mobile.phone has. This sort of device has been common in food factories for quite a while now and is inevitably moving into first high-volume then after refinement canteen kitchens before slowly making its way into the home.

It’s a great thing if it does, the food industry is hugely wasteful especially when trying to lower overheads which also lowers quality and healthiness of diets. Multistage processing allows near to raw ingredients to be sourced locally and used as needed thus avoiding the need for chemical preservatives, pre-proceasing and all the transport logistics, added risk, and etc. Cheap food places could go back to the days of getting fresh produce delivered rather than bags of presliced and shaped meal components from a factory - that’d be huge amounts of plastic and oil use removed from our global consumption.

Of course this installed device is probably just fairly basic pick and place using preshaped meal components but it’s a step in the evolution of small-scale industrial kitchens which will eventually benefit us all.

Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.

And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.

However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.

You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.

Or leaving the r and also hitting the key next to it, could see some wild insertion pics

Yeah I checked, very wholesome old men in rainbows or posing as couples. A few shirtless.

Pornhub gives different results so im guessing this is for straight guys searching Gary Oldman there.

Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That’s not been suggested.

You’re saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you’re trying to push, even if it’s objectives are good.

Yeah, especially in the southern hemisphere, a few centuries later we might have slightly different genetics through rapid evolution via population collapse but we’d probably be back developing with a bit more accurate folk knowledge and probably actually a lot of remembered tech.

It’d be terrible to the people it happened to but barely a blip in the life history of the planet from the first evolution to the last lifeforms leaving or dying.

This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don’t see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.

I don’t know or really care who’s right because it’s meaningless but you certainly don’t look like the person with a valid position here.

I said it when the first person did it, glorifying such actions only leads to copycats and tragedy - it won’t chance anyone’s mind about anything

So if someone set themselves on fire to protest immigration or against gay rights you’d say ‘let’s sir down and work out how to ban homosexuality because it’s obviously a valid issue if someone killed themselves over it’

Of course not, how would you respond if 50 kkk members killed themselves to protest in favor of segregation? Or if a Facebook group full of flat earthers burned themselves to protest? Would that make their cause valid?

It’s funny a good open source washing machine with wifi could be amazing, would allow for so much more control by letting you modify programs and view diagnostics but proprietary hardware is never going to let you do the good stuff because the you wouldn’t need to buy the more expensive but physically almost identical models.

So if an American drinks a beer in a German biergarten or in a park in france they should be charged with violating the open container law?

Also a criminal record can fuck your life in a myriad of ways, if like me you fall in love with someone from another country and you both have weed charges neither country will let you live together even decades later destroying what’s probably your only chance at happiness.

These rules are needlessly cruel and absurd.

Oh come on just because we hate Trump doesn’t mean we should kid ourselves, there’s a lot of value to having access to 600k of the easiest to scam rubes on the planet.

Also a car bumping a wall or even breaking a window doesn’t seem like a real problem, feels like this is one of those ‘man chokes eating his shoe, shocking statistics show almost all Americans wear dangerous choking hazard shoes!’

Also bollards don’t change the situation significantly for the occupants of the car, the only statistic that’s actually interesting is how often do people outsidw the car get hurt when it happens - since they’re only talking about one tragic incident I’m guessing it’s a low number.

So if a car hit your house and the postman gets hurt you’d hold yourself personally responsible and pay all his costs and stuff?