darq

And I’m saying that I don’t like the meat replacers.

Nowhere in any of my comments have I suggested a “meat replacer” even a single time.

This is why I’m snarky with you. Because you keep pretending I’ve said things that I haven’t.

None the less, in my first post I spesifically pointed out that I am not looking for “just remove meat”, which was the point. And your answer was “well these foods are good if you just remove the meat”.

I know what you asked. But no, that is not what I said.

I did not say “remove the meat”. I pointed out that all these meals are vegetarian until you add the meat. None of them are intrinsically meat-based.

This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say you need a change of mindset, if you actually want to try.

However, I find that the modern vegetarian cousine has stagnated because of the need to sell “meatlesd meat”.

I have no idea where you are looking, but nothing could be further from the truth. Vegetarian options have flourished because more people are moving to a meat-free diet.

I have tried a lot of “vegan options”, and as said, I am not looking to turn vegan. That is why I can decide NOT to compromise when it comes to meat.

And of course, you think pretty much every vegan dish is a compromise, and so you will continue to not try. Convenient!

And if you want to convert people to veganism, you need to change of mindset.

Bite me :)

A recipe is a start.

I’ve suggested three already, I’m sorry you have trouble reading.

This is why people who eat mainly meat don’t even consider vegan food.

No, the reason is that you have invented a false history to justify not even trying.

There are entire cultures where eating meat is either a rare occasion, or simply never done, even though they have access to meat and livestock.

People eat what they had available. Sometimes that was meat, many times it wasn’t.

Just one recipe. Is that too much?

A simple vegetable soup is easy and nutritious. Most curries are vegetable-first and only become non-vegetarian by choosing to add meat instead of something like lentils or checkpeas. Vegetable lasagna is decadent and satisfying.

There are near-infinite recipes available of food that is plant-based and tastes good. But you have this list of exclusionary factors where you have decided that various meals “should” have meat, and therefore a meat-free version has made a replacement, and is therefore inferior and you aren’t going to try it.

You don’t need a recipe, you need a change of mindset.

Whatever. Good luck to you.

There are vegetable versions of every “incorporated” meal where all the ingredients are mixed together, like pasta, soup, curry, stir-fry, etc… And for every other meal, the meat portion is easily replaceable with another portion of vegetables.

Going vegetarian really is as simple as “don’t put meat in it”. Just take it off the ingredient list. Meals do not naturally contain meat, so if you don’t add any, they won’t have any. It’s not something to be “substituted” unless you are wanting to mimic a specific meal.

They are going on adventures together! Maybe one day they’ll both read the same book at the same time, and go on the same adventure!

The system doesn’t actually require any collaboration to eventually become a two-party race. It’s pretty much statistically assured if voters behave rationally, but with limited information.

Well, sorta but also not really.

Neither party seems to have any interest in reforming the voting system to something more representative. So in that way I guess you could say they are colluding, but more reasonably they simply share a common incentive.

But it really is the system itself that makes third party candidates basically impossible. It incentivises people to vote strategically, not for the party they want but rather against the party they don’t want. That system is eventually sure to collapse into a two-party system.

Wild how he doesn’t even mention the possibility of voting for a third party.

Why would he? The US voting system makes third party candidates an impossibility. It’s not a viable option.

Yeah honestly living there for a while, I came around a bit on doing things by paper.

It’s slower, certainly. But the Japanese are scary efficient at it, and there is a lot of infrastructure to support it.

And in the case where things go wrong or are confusing, at least you can take the forms and actually go and talk to someone, rather than staring at a computer screen that offers nothing.

Japan has been in the year 2000 for the past 50 years.

I would love to do something like this, except it’s way too goofy with the attached controllers.

Steamdeck in a tablet form factor would be perfect.

Yup, that’s what happens whenever “civility” is the primary metric used for moderation.

Trolls post heinous nonsense, and respond to people in the most insufferable rage-bait-y manner. But if anyone so much as calls them an asshole, they get their comments removed for saying a no-no word.

Brainworms.

Even without knowledge of the source of the image, there is no reasonable way a normal person interprets that message as a genuine threat of violence.

Immediately has to pee.

Because the picture of the “gayroller 2000” is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives’ baseless fears of “the gay agenda”. Seeing a pattern?

On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called “groomers” and be accused of being dangerous to children.

Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes… Some of them would, and have, followed through.

I quite simply do not believe that for even a second.

Let’s not pretend that you actually give a damn about transgender people. This is just concern trolling.

A massacre, or a genocide, is more than just “one’s” life ending. It is one’s own life, the lives of one’s loved ones, and the lives of one’s people.