Wrong. The fake meat in the top portion is overprocessed and tastes like garbage instead of delicious meat, while the bottom portion is 100% delicious vegan food.
Edit: downvotes from people who hate vegan food, I guess.
Depends on the brand IMO. I actually really like Impossible Meat; to me it tastes like decent quality beef with some really good hard to place seasoning. If it wasn't so damn expensive I'd get it over actual ground beef.
They were referring to the comma. Commonly used with a verbal pause. So like: "It's not...though?" As if the "though?" was its own thought and the only part of the sentence that had the question inflection.
Literally not a single thing in our world isn’t chemicals. Lemontek - chemicals interacting. Alcohol for some party - Chemicals. Every part of any meal - chemicals. All of it.
In general I think people are referring to things that are either A) heavily proccesed and/or B) something that isn’t naturally occurring. When they speak about “chemicals”
Your body is made to eat natually occuring plants and animals. Any deviation from that is risking long term issues. Effects that are very often (at least here in the states) ignored unless they just straight up kill you. And even then it’ll probably take a couple decades before anyone actually does something about it. So, yes while many people misuse the word “chemical,” their fear is not misplaced. You should be skeptical of things that are synthesized until they are proven to interact with the human body appropriately
Granted, there are things in this world that aren’t chemicals. Muons, stuff at the LHC, plasma… But everything that a normal person interacts with is a chemical.
That one’s just for you. People always go off about it being a natural chemical reaction etc and it’s timely with all the conversation about growing acception of psychadelics for mental health
I think we need to understand what definition people are using for “chemicals”. They usually are referring to highly processed ingredients, with highly processed preservatives, highly processed artificial flavors (called “natural flavors”, but taken for example from the anal glans of a beaver… yes this is real and common). By the broadest definition, absolutely everything is a chemical. Generally, people should avoid any definition for a word that makes the word nonsensical. And also generally, you will find big lobbyist groups using that general definition to shell-game about the specific chemicals they are trying to protect.
When a food-concerned person mentions chemicals, they are referring to things like antibiotics or hormones, preservatives or processed sweeteners with known side-effects. Some of them are talking about isolates, like soy protein isolate to which there are valid health concerns.
And yes, sometimes people referring to chemicals don’t know what chemicals they’re complaining about. And yes, sometimes people complaining about chemicals are complaining that their meatless burger’s consistency comes from methyl cellulose, (probably) completely harmless but absolutely artificial.
The same way some vegans are made ill by the thought of meat, some folks are made ill by flavor- or consistency-related facts in their food. I mean, I think vegans would be concerned to know the beaver anal secretions above was in some plant milks under the term “natural flavors”.
Not for the Jews. Zionism and Islamic anti-Semitism and the violence from these movements predates the British trying to find a solution. However mishandled it was. They are two ideologies fundamentally opposed to one another, and they are incapable of coexistence in their current forms.
Every should know about the Sykes–Picot Agreement, it’s one of those treaties/laws that have long lasting consequences in the current world (same with ww2 agreements).
Inb4 people who were silent as Israel has been attacking gaza an average of 3 times per day, are now suddenly worried about civilians when Hamas responded
Level-headed people are not saying that Palestine shouldn’t fight back against the occupation, they’re just deriding the method they’re using. It’s hard to support a regime that kills civilians and children, even if they’re doing it in response to their civilians and children being killed. Two wrongs usually don’t make a right.
Now the question that I think is still rhetorical and whose answer people can’t agree upon is this: what is the appropriate response to apartheid and genocide? Many would agree that attacking the IDF, government officials etc. would constitute reasonable reactive force, however this is particularly difficult for Palestine due to Israel’s domination of the geography.
What should Hamas do that can expedite the end of apartheid and genocide? I don’t know. It’s a fucked situation. I feel deeply for the Palestinians, especially the almost 50% of them that are under the age of 18, and believe that they need to be liberated. I also feel deeply for Israeli citizens, many of whom didn’t vote for Netanyahu, who have been killed as a result of the Hamas incursion.
This issue is flooded with nuance that’s just going over many people’s heads.
If we had to spend our energy critiquing something, Palestinian resistance is the last thing you should critique. Their damage is miniscule compared to what Israel has done, and they’re still far more humane. At the very least, the operation’s target was military installations, encampments and officials. Israel’s target is civilians themselves.
This isn’t to deny that civilians died in crossfire or even needlessly killed. Hamas is not an organized state nor a hive mind, and after living their whole lives in a concentration camp, it’s a miracle that only a minority of their fighters engage in needless killing of civilians who were rave dancing at the gates of their concentration camp.
Can I critique it? Sure, I wish it didn’t happen. But I blame Israel for taking us this far. If it wasn’t for Israel, we wouldn’t have had so many people living in constant war and massacre their entire lives for hate to brew in their hearts. To live with either two choices: wait in suffocating conditions for your death to come, or resist.
We can walk and chew gum. We can critique Hamas AND the Israeli government / IDF. We can accept Israel’s responsibility in pushing the Palestinian people to desperation for survival through apartheid and genocide, and we can condemn Hamas’ killing of civilians. We can call for Israel to immediately ceasefire and we can call for Hamas to immediately ceasefire. We can feel for Palestinian civilians even as we feel for Israeli citizens.
This is not black and white; life rarely is. It’s steeped in nuance. That’s okay to talk about.
We can critique Hamas AND the Israeli government / IDF
I already addressed this argument above. If you think my argument wasn’t sufficient or there’s anything wrong with it, please address it directly. Otherwise, I don’t know what to tell you besides restate the same.
We can feel for Palestinian civilians even as we feel for Israeli citizens.
Absolutely. I hope you’re not implying that I said the opposite.
Palestinian resistance is the last thing you should critique
Here you’re conflating Hamas with all Palestinians and implying that Hamas’ actions are merely ‘Palestinian resistance’ which is just incorrect. Palestinian civilians should NOT be lumped in with their unelected (in the last 17 years) leaders, much as Jewish people should not be lumped in with Israel/their government. The majority of Palestinian citizens have never had an opportunity to vote for their leaders.
That point aside, the killing of civilians, whether intentional or through reckless disregard, should never be last on the list of condemnation. We can want Palestine to win their freedom and independence while criticising how Hamas is attempting to achieve that. We should be critiquing innocent slaughter wherever it exists and regardless of who is the perpetrator or victim.
memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.