I must agree with you that some plant based milks are hogwash, if that's not too much of a contradiction, but there have been vast improvements over the many decades I've been a consumer. I'm guessing that, at least in part, that has to do with demand. It's worth vetting the ingredients for additives such as thickeners, lanolin based vitamin D (if a plant based diet is the goal) and trying out different brands for taste.
Soya is also grown in third world countries, such as those in Africa, for the Western animal feed market. Some 75% of the world's soya is made into protein rich animal feed and is eaten by livestock, not us pesky vegans, or hungry third world children. Cutting down rainforest for soya production (presumably to feed the livestock that other bits of rainforest have been desecrated for) is also an issue.
I eat a plant based diet, but I dont think of myself as 'a vegan', nor would I join the Vegan Party.
I kind of agree with them about the milk in schools, however. Back in the days when rickets was common, it had ethical value, but better standards of living and modern farming techniques have somewhat negated that. Halfway decent free school meals for low income families would be more beneficial and a better use of resources.
I think if I wanted to 'spread the word' a vegan party would be a better idea.
If people can see that plant based food can be a deliciously splendid healthy option, perhaps more folk would experiment with their five a day.
I have little doubt that it could improve the health of the world and the planet if people were more open to vegetable matter, but beating them over the head with a carrot stick is unlikely to be overly persuasive and perhaps somewhat counter-productive. It's not exactly ethical, either.
You adopted a liberal and then your liberal went missing.
You accused the mods of stealing your liberal, but then they pointed out your liberal was exactly where you left it, in your old house, cwtched up in its basket patiently waiting for you to come home.
The reason for this reprehensible liberal neglect is because you'd forgotten you'd moved house.
I think perhaps you need to stop casting aspersions about other people's intellectual capabilities and powers of reasoning, before this event becomes a CS legend.
The way I listened to it changed after discovering that little historical gem.
I used to listen to Radio 4 all the time back in the days when I spent my days (and nights) in my workshop.
Sometimes I'd find myself transfixed by the plays and Book At Bedtime, my toes hovering over a pedal, not wanting to interrupt with the noise of machinery.
Now I'm not sure how much I would miss, even in a quiet room.
"Originally produced with collaborative input from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The Archers was conceived as a means of disseminating information to farmers and smallholders to help increase productivity in the postwar era of rationing and food shortages."
If she had shot him, you could perhaps argue that she didn't see him put the one bullet back in, or saw him making the action, but didn't believe he actually put the bullet back in.
Given that he put the bullet back in and knew he had, he must also have known that with each shot fired there was a chance the gun would discharge, even if he was too stupid to work out that with each trigger action the odds were increasing.
It could be argued that he acted in a reckless, or negligent manner, it could be argued that he killed her whilst committing a crime, but given he knew there was a bullet in the gun, he pointed it at her and fired, I fail to see how there wasn't an element of intent.
He knew there was a possibility that he would kill her, but did it anyway.
If you try to argue that he didn't realise there was a possibility that he might kill her, then you need some extenuating factor which affects usual, rational conceptualisation of possible consequences.
Even claiming to be under the influence of psychoactive substances doesn't really work as a defence if the substance was imbibed knowingly and voluntarily.
That leaves involuntary intoxication, or insanity.
After mocking Inthecountryside for citing a wikipedia article, you evidence your argument with a picture.
At 15.07 minutes of this video, Trump proceeds to take full responsibility for the shut down and says he won't blame the Democrats. He says he's going to shut down the government until he gets the border security he wants in the way he wants.
Earlier in the video Trump demonstrates he is not prepared to have an evidence based discussion regarding the best option for the American people.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,976)
<--- the nearest I could get to an imp emote.
from me.
RE: Christian Terrorism - Victims of the Christian Faith
There are no sides, no groups, nor gods involved in murder.Just murderers.