No. It's really not. I know the study you are going to link with the clickbait title that "plants feel pain", but it's unscientific garbage.
When you cut a plant, it only reacts with a secretion. That's not sentience, it has no concept of pain because it literally does not have the required parts to feel it. Pain requires a nerve ending to feel the sensation, a brain to process that sensation in to an threat and a system to connect those two organs. Plants have none of this.
Yes plants release a pheromone when they are cut, but to extrapolate that to pain is a wild leap. If I cut an animal, they bleed, they yell, and they either run away or attack me, they generally do the same for their children. Exactly like humans react when cut. It's impossible to disprove if plants have some other totally radically different type of intelligence we just don't understand yet, but there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. I am making my choices based off evidence, not "idk, what if it was true". It's the same reason I know the earth is round and not flat, evidence not vibes.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that a potato and a pig perceive the world in the same way.
I don't eat meat because it causes suffering in another. Plants have no concept of pain without a brain, nervous system or even nerve endings. So to me, the question becomes if the lab grown meat was ever attached to a brain that could feel suffering.
Now as far i understand it, lab grown meat isn't nessecarily grown in isolation from a cow. But in a solution primarily compromised of blood extracted from living cows. That's without question better than killing a creature, buuuuuuut we all know that when profits are involved the health of a animal is not prioritized.
So it really depends, while I don't miss meat, once lab grown becomes widely available I'll make my choice depending on the exact process of how it reached the grocery store.
That has nothing to do with "being a machine gun". That is just how semi auto guns work.
This sort of "X is X no matter what changes, it is always X" essentialist thinking is why conservites are increasingly getting frustrated and loosing touch with the more complex reality the rest of the world occupies. This is the same line of thinking that keeps y'all upset about trans rights and understanding systemic racist.
“Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress’s definition of ‘machinegun’ and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.”
“We conclude that [a] semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger"
“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,”
Ignoring reality in favor of weird essentialism to support your base, is like peak conservative. How dumb.
Ticket prices originally used to be fixed by the goverment, which made airlines try to offer the best experince as a way to attract customers. But then lobbyists chanted "deregulation" enough times and airlines could set their own prices. Which of course started a race to the bottom where the way to attract customers was now to slash costs. It's a big reason how back in the 50s being a commercial airline pilots or flight attendent was prestigious profession, became today where most of a flight crew, pilot included, qualify for SNAP.
Honestly, this is hesrt breaking. Always expected from anyone "converted to straight". But this guy spent his whole life denying himself and then made his profession pushing and reinforcing that shame on to others. He is absolutely a victim, but I imagine that accepting himself comes with a lot of regrets regarding others the people he.... "helped".
One can only hope he becomes a force for acceptance and self love moving forward. But, I imagine regrets will haunt him for the rest of his days. Poor guy.
My first viewing I did mostly take it at face value. But in my defense, I was a dumb 11 year old kid. It wasn't until Neil Patrick Haris came out in full SS uniform that I started asking questions.
Its easy to say everyone misunderstood me, but you should look at the common factor in each of those misunderstandings. You can think you communicated perfectly, but if the net effect is so many people didn't understand you, then perhaps it's time to consider more precise word choice instead of vague thinks like "suspicious".
Jesus. You should've just said that from the start. Maybe he is, who knows.
But look at the mass downvotes and negative responses to your original comment. You need to understand that conspiracy nuts think everything is suspicious and part of whatever grand master plan they believe in. So when you talk like a nut, people assume you are one and treat you as such.
Lol wut? You're the one claiming something suspicious happened in this extremely boring non lethal non interesting event that happens every minute of every day, but now I'M the consisparcy blog nut?
There is no consisparcy here! You are making so many wild jumps here. I was laughing at you with those 3 """theories""".
Man with brain injury who recently had been publicly eviscerated for a rightward swing maybe is a little bit careless when driving
Yeah? And? There are accidents all the time.
Yeah it’s suspicious.
Total non sequiter.
Just come out and say what you think is going on. Was this some convulated failed assassination? Was he trying to murder suicide? Did the deepstate cut his brakes because he told Bill Maher too much?!
Well three big reasons, it's statistically less likely to be an incident, has less terrible results if DOES become a problem and the personal experiences of women. So just to be clear, the hypothetical is
Would you rather be alone in the woods with a random man or a random bear?
And the vast majority of women, myself included, pick the random bear. Of course we realize that bears are dangerous creatures, on average they attack about 40 people a year worldwide. Primarily hikers that get too close to a mother bear and it attacks to protect its cubs.
Now compare that with the statistics of sexual violence. A few things should jump out, primarily that 1 in 5 women experince sexual assault at some point in their lives. One in three victims are minors and just over half of those attacking the crime are known to the victim. It's hard to compare those numbers straight across, because per year and in lifetime aren't quite the same thing, BUT it's also very clear that it's WAY WAY WAY more likely that a young woman will be harmed by men they know. Exponentially more so than they are attack by bears.
(and it's worth nothing that most experts agree those numbers are likely lower than reality due to social pressures and shame)
If I were hypothetically alone in the woods with a bear, I would know that so long as I leave the bear alone, its likely to leave me alone. If I mess with it or it's cubs, I'm liable to have a problem but if I focus on getting home then it's likely not a problem.
But if it were a random man that knew we were alone in the woods? Well, not only is the man faster and stronger than me, he is also way more likely to harm me than a bear. If I attempt to evade a human, it's way less assured that I could get home safely. Not only is he way smarter and more motivated to find me than a bear, but he also runs the risk of being sadistic. Even in a worse case scenario, the worst thing a bear can do is simply kill me. But some men are liable to keep me alive simply for their gratification and then eventually kill me. To speak nothing of sadists who will specfically enjoy my suffering. That's not a risk with the bear. Getting the worst bear in the world means minutes of pain if I am reckless enough to be near it, but getting the worst man means hours/days/weeks of suffering from a captor that is much harder to escape from. Regardless of my actions, age, appearance or relationship to the man.
And let's say a man/bear does assault me in the woods and I escape back to civilization. Everyone will believe me when I say a bear attacked me. But not so it I say a man. That will prompt questions of
"what were you wearing?"
"Did you lead him on?"
"He said it was consentual, you might be lying because you regret it."
Mosy women have not been raped, BUT most women have had a man try something explict with them while alone. Be it alone in an apartment, home, classroom or any other place. So when the hypothetical is total isolation from society, laws and repurcussions. When it's just me alone in the woods, the bear is a safer bet on every single factor.
Try to answer the question with your little sister in mind, would you rather her be alone in the woods with a stranger man or a random bear? Because as I said before, tragically, 1 in 3 victims are minors, how many many men would we this as their golden opportunity for SA without repercussions? Would those men seek her out? Or would you rather the subject contuine being a wild animal in the woods that doesn't care your sister even exists.
No. It's really not. I know the study you are going to link with the clickbait title that "plants feel pain", but it's unscientific garbage.
When you cut a plant, it only reacts with a secretion. That's not sentience, it has no concept of pain because it literally does not have the required parts to feel it. Pain requires a nerve ending to feel the sensation, a brain to process that sensation in to an threat and a system to connect those two organs. Plants have none of this.
Yes plants release a pheromone when they are cut, but to extrapolate that to pain is a wild leap. If I cut an animal, they bleed, they yell, and they either run away or attack me, they generally do the same for their children. Exactly like humans react when cut. It's impossible to disprove if plants have some other totally radically different type of intelligence we just don't understand yet, but there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. I am making my choices based off evidence, not "idk, what if it was true". It's the same reason I know the earth is round and not flat, evidence not vibes.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that a potato and a pig perceive the world in the same way.