it’s an actual scientist talking, who doesn’t seem to be making any outrageous claims, or anything you could call propaganda, no conclusions are drawn, so idk what the propaganda would even be for.
when did you last read the definitions of propaganda
you no what's crazy is Democrats lost that election too and they're not willing to do something that brave. where's Harris assaulting officers and resisting arrest for gaza?
this is a gish gallop. which study are you citing? the 22 year old study (reference number 78)? which of the dozens of references did you actually read?
part of the advantage of not eating animals is that it takes less plants to eat just plants, then it does to eat animals - since you have to feed those animals too
animals graze, and what crops they are fed are often crop-seconds or parts of plants that people can't (or won't) eat.
if you want to lose an argument about the validity of utilitarian ethics, I'll be happy to help you. if you want to keep throwing out red herrings, and you can stop making it personal, that's fine too
anti propaganda is still propaganda, even if it's factual.