Just going to leave this here.

Found a real source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79546-1

$10 says most death penalty state-sanctioned murder proponents would’ve proposed before 2022 (or even just before this verdict) that she was a clear-cut example of why it’s necessary because what kind of monster would definitely 100% verifiably beat their child to death? Fucking repugnant.

Before “Seward’s Folly” gets brought up, I invite you to watch this Premodernist video.

Ah, much appreciated; that doesn’t show up on my app. Man, I wish the experience weren’t so inconsistent between desktop and mobile. (Also good riddance.)

Grandma got run over by a dragon?

Oh shit, you’re right. Monk hasn’t posted in 20 days. How convenient lmfao

Can’t criticize them after the election

Huh? That’s all anyone has been doing the past week. What are you on? You’re acting like this is some sort of catch-22, but it so obviously isn’t: hold the line before the election to minimize the chances of a fascist getting into office (like in 2020 with Biden), then immediately thereafter regardless of the results completely shit all over them for how they aren’t where they should be.

Edit: I still haven’t heard how the complete avalanche of massive, basically unabated criticisms of the DNC over the last nine-ish days is being suppressed.

I’m also going to note that a ton of slaughterhouse workers are either undocumented or are the sorts of legal first-generation Latino immigrants Trump would still want to illegally deport. Even as a vegan who wants to see this industry die I can see how fucking disastrous that kind of shock would be for food prices. Even the change in public perception would be massive since it seems like the price of meat is one of the most significant barometers most meat-eaters use for how expensive groceries are.

Leaving this up even though it attempts (and fails) to justify genocide and uses what’s arguably an ethnic slur akin to e.g. “Paki” or “Jap” simply because I think readers should have an opportunity to contrast your ignorant bullshit against @jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com’s well-reasoned comment debunking it.

However, stay the hell out of this community forever. Thanks.

A vastly better experience for less money? Never! /s

Thank you. I still have no idea why people make the ridiculous argument of “Well what will we do with all the living ones?” It’s either what you said, or they think there’s going to be an entire multi-billion-dollar industry supporting tens of thousands of cows for each individual of the last remaining non-vegans. It’s so disingenuous that they’ve either never thought it through or actually just don’t care.

It’s frustrating how arguments supporting the overwhelming status quo don’t need to hold up to scrutiny at all. Then the ones speaking out against it have mountains of credible data and airtight logical arguments that can just be dismissed out-of-hand by complete, nonsensical bullshit, and the general public will lap it up.

The little whiskers 😭

Oh, that’s super cool: you’ve actually made a claim that can be addressed. So now substantiate it. You say “the studies”, but ostensibly there are 1530 of them. Out of the 1530, how many say this? Because I imagine you’re saying you’ve at least checked some subset of them. Can you point to even a single specific one which Poore & Nemecek used in their analysis? More importantly, can you point to even a single one of those authors (or hell, anyone else) who issued any sort of commentary calling this paper out for this alleged “bad science”?

After all, the scientific process isn’t just being extremely credentialed; it isn’t just meta-analyzing over 1500 papers; it isn’t just standing up to the scrutiny of peer review prior to publication: it’s knowing that at any time, someone else can read your paper, say “that’s wrong/dubious, actually”, demonstrate that objectively, and then publish that information. This is an extremely economically important topic with an industry who would be champing at the bit to publish a paper debunking this one, the work has been discussed in international news, and it’s published in one of the most prestigious academic journals, so clearly it should have undergone some level of public scrutiny.

Clearly you as someone with (obviously) literally no background in this field can point out such an egregious error, so why hasn’t any actual credible scientist? Or better yet, why haven’t you compiled and submitted this information for publication?

Shhh, don’t call it “haptic feedback” or they might make them flat, unmoving buttons that have a vibration motor behind them.

Removed by mod

Okay, so do what I asked. If you’ve said something substantive, thought-out, and falsifiable in the past, it should be trivial for you to copy-paste that here.

Every time you show up to talk about this paper, you just say it “misuses LCA” and then never elaborate because you don’t actually understand anything about the paper. See where the authors discuss their methodology? Please go there and point out how exactly it “misuses LCA”. Make a pointed, falsifiable criticism of the paper, please.

You understand that the sham papers aren’t uniformly distributed over journals, right? You understand that 8000 of them belonged to a single publisher and that thousands of fully legitimate papers are published every day? And that Science is – again – one of the most rigorous academic journals in the world? Just blanket denying science that you pretend to understand isn’t going to help your floundering credibility.

Almond milk has been around since at least the 13th century. Do you take issue with almond milk calling itself “milk”, and if so, do you need a refresher on arithmetic?