Literally nobody in the public voted for her in the first term at least.

Edit: WTF, Lemmy. I'm factually correct. Look at her Wikipedia page if you don't believe me.

She was appointed when Jason Kenney resigned. She won in the second term, not the first term. In the first term, the public was not given a chance to vote for her or not.

But airing a candidate debate is not a right-wing thing. Since when (in the last 20 years at least) has anything right-wing allowed debates from both major sides in the American political spectrum? Making an attempt to be fair is a centrist or Left-wing thing. If anything, that would further prove my point.

I can't debate this as I don't watch any news channels, but are you able to counter what Media Bias Fact Check (which, as far as I have seen is extremely accurate and vets their information) states, or is this a case that people on the extreme sides of any political movement see anything even slightly closer to the centre as "the other side?"

So... (and again, I'm trying to parse the situation, not attacking so I'm asking all three respondents here the same question so I get a range of replies) Biden has been funding the war specifically and giving Israel weapons? Why? To what end? And please don't say genocide because that's not a tangible reward result for Biden or America. If they are doing the above, what do they get from it?

So don't jump down my throat please but I don't understand this article. I have a couple of question that I would like an actual answer to and haven't seen addressed anywhere else:

"Team America World Police" was a mockable idea back in the 90s and early 2000s because America stuck its nose everywhere - wanted or not.

Now here I see people attacking a president because he will not interfere in something that shouldn't be America's business? As far as I was aware, America leaving other countries the hell alone would be a good thing on the world stage, no? Why not get mad that any sitting president hasn't interfered in the Uyghgur Genocide? Why just this?

Why is this particular conflict that has been ongoing for ages something worth blaming a current president for not interfering in?

The only thing I can really find online in the news are Republicans blaming Biden for the attacks on Israel which doesn't make sense with the response here. What the heck is going on?

I don't have a stance on this, I'm just trying to understand because it doesn't make sense to me so please don't take that as aggressive.

Edit: Downvotes? For trying to figure out an international situation? Man, I don't understand you sometimes, Lemmy. You can be so nonsensically goddamn hostile...

First and foremost, let me say that I appreciate you actually engaging.

Now, if what I'm interpreting is correct (and feel free to set me straight if I'm incorrect), your argument stems from a moralistic one. Moralistic arguments are not solid stances to argue from; similar to a hardcore Christian seeing abortions as vile and evil because of a personal moral stance, you feel your moral position is better, therefore you look down on opposition. However that is a personal opinion and those aren't convincing - certainly not for sensitive topics. Let's approach the debate from a scientific standpoint.

Trying to stick to the logic of the situation, the crux of statements I've seen here seem to be “Being vegan is eliminating suffering and therefore should be the end goal.” Is that not correct? I’m not arguing in bad faith like many here or making a shitty “bacon = good” joke. I want to make sure you’re not being misinterpreted.

Other reasons I have seen in threads similar to this coming from the "angry vegan" side of things (and some responses to those) are:

• If you want to be vegan because you enjoy it? Go for it. That is inarguable. It's no more or less valid than someone liking the colour red.

• If you want to be vegan because you feel it’s healthier? Rock on. Go you! You are probably correct if you monitor your diet. I would argue against it being better than a vegetarian diet however.

• If you want to be vegan because it’s easier on the environment? Well, for individuals? Yup! At the moment, you could make a good case that it would be better for the planet, but only because we’re overpopulated and statistically, being vegan is unsustainable if the entire planet were to switch tomorrow. A smarter case to make would be for a reduction in humans as being vegan is an extremely minor step of harm reduction compared to fewer people. Also, most food fed to livestock is not human-consumable and is often byproducts that would otherwise go to waste. Creating more food from waste is more efficient than discarding it.

• If you want to be vegan because you don’t like factory farms? Sure, I hate them too, however quitting animal products altogether is not a logical jump to make from that feeling. There are plenty of smaller suppliers you can procure from that do not have those issues; the more logical jump is to just not use bad providers no matter what the product. For example, I have raised bees and worked in a co-operative apiary. There was no abuse, and the likely alternative to us creating the hives was death for the entire bee community. Tell me how being vegan is better than creating my own honey and essentially creating hives and colonies from scratch, but using animal products in that instance.

• If you want to be vegan because it’s eliminating suffering (or death)? Again, kind of. This is simply making substitutions for suffering that you’re comfortable with. You can make an argument that it's somehow lesser, but it's bad logic and therefore a bad argument. You’re also applying your own morals (because again, this is a strictly moral standpoint) to other people, which is silly no matter who is doing it. From activists to religious extremists, your morals apply to you and only you. Do not try to enforce them on the outside world. You can argue for them, but getting mad at anyone with a differing view is silly and unproductive. As you said (and dismissed), you can lessen suffering or death, but you can not eliminate it. Your existence causes death. All existence does. Everything alive is only alive because it feeds off other living things who have their own way of existing. A suffering or death being a style you choose to not recognize is not only not a valid defence, it makes you just as guilty as those you attack. Your opposition also feel that their being is higher than those they ingest and they also do not recognize the deaths of those they consider lesser, they simply drew their line elsewhere.

And the way vegans are going about it in these threads isn’t helpful to your cause. Mindless emotion-driven downvoting does not change hearts or minds.

A better outreach for you would be to use the Food subs and post legit great vegetarian food and entice people that way. Doing it the way they are now will accomplish nothing of value. Well, unless they secretly work for a factory farm and want to piss people off so they eat more meat, in which case those psuedo-vegans are doing exactly what they should be in these threads which is mindlessly downvoting instead of engaging.

Feel free to ask for sources for any statements I made that aren't related to personal preference. I can back up everything with peer-reviewed studies.

Funnily enough, "not so smart joke" is the same descriptor I have for no-discussion downvoters.

It really is the embodiment of that old joke about people never wanting to hear other people's opinions, and only wanting to hear their own opinion parroted back to them by someone passably eloquent.

That's what I was wondering. I wonder if there's any actual evidence of anything occurring, or if it's more of a case that it would be dramatically cheaper to replace him.

Other than the precise numbers contained in the infographic, which aspect of the original post ignores the fundamentals of science? Especially now that you've also agreed that fewer people equals less consumption.

Double post. Ignore this.

It is not an opinion to state that fewer people equals less consumption.

Edit: Pardon, but if those of you mindlessly downvoting could explain your point instead of just being disagreeable, it would be appreciated.

I'm going to ask a legitimate question and I promise I'm not trolling but this seems insane to me and I have to ask.

Why in the fuck would anybody use a special app just for podcasts?

I just go to the website, download the show, throw it on my phone and I'm good to go. It takes very little time I don't have anyone selling my listening data.

I'd genuinely like to know what the benefit is.