then there is no need to lie about the position the academy

this is a leap of logic. there is not direct correlation, and your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.

they have published a version of this position continually since the early '90s at least. if you look at the position paper that’s linked, you can see the specifics. this position has expired and not been renewed for years. that is good reason to believe that it will not be renewed and will no longer be the position of the academy.

it’s entirely true. they don’t care how it tastes, they care if they get paid

it’s not their current position, and linking it, and saying it is their position, is dishonest.

animals aren’t killed for taste. it’s usually for profit.

since the paper you linked expired

edit:

all current positions of the academy

double edit:

i see you are not the one who linked the expired paper. whoops.

it is no longer the position of the academy of nutrition and dietetics that vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. it hasn’t been for years. you should stop spreading misinformation.

that’s not the amount of food we make: that’s land use. much of it is grazing land.

no, it doesn’t.

the venus williams bit mentions that being vegan helps with the symptoms of some autoimmune disease. it doesn’t say it prevents them (at least not from my reading)

one of them is a lifter. one of them plays pro football. everyone else is endurance, speed, or technical athlete. so while being vegan seems like a reasonable option for people who don’t need mass and strength, it appears that vegans who have those attributes are outliers.

I smoked for about 15 years. I quit by breaking the habit s associated with smoking: I used nicotine pouches for a year.

then went could turkey

I still keep a tin of them in my desk drawer. I don’t use them.

I will use nicotine recreationally, but it’s not a habit any more.

no one suggested we should.

different species have different lifecycles. why shouldn’t a lion kill its young? theer is good reason for people not to. but the same doesn’t apply to food.

rape is not a reasonable term for what happens between non-sapient animals.

ia already serves all their uploads as torrents

the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don’t think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop “seconds”; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn’t credited to cattle, it’s counted against their total water use.

that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?

that image is based on poore-nemecek 2018 which has terrible methodology.

viability is a myth. they told us hilary was viable and john kerry.