swim

It’s actually “666”

Dammit this whole post was an ad pack it up boys

this is true and I’m tired of pretending it isn’t

Shamming

Can I get a witness?!

Just because you’re not wrong doesn’t mean you’re right. “Spray and pray” is the lowest form of divine intervention. - Laws of Murphy, 69:420

How a gun “works” is that a thick-walled chamber houses the cartridge, so that as the powder ignited within rapidly expands (deflagration) there is nowhere for it to go besides violently propelling the projectile into the barrel. If there is no chamber, the thin walls of the cartidge are the path of least resistence, and the bullet likely stays put as the gases escape from cracks in the casing.

So no, while this wouldn’t be “safe” (eye damage comes to mind), there would not be enough energy to significantly wound a human by striking a round’s primer without a chamber.

No barrel makes the whole round detonate. The bullet is ineffective, the “gun” explode :(

Not to mention her luxury room and board, the shopping sprees, and the jewelry gifts.

Everything you’re quoting is from the link I posted, saying things I’ve already said in other comments. I’m proud of you for reading the information.

Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)

Yep!

https://www.mdlinx.com/article/is-the-impossible-burger-really-healthier-than-beef/2t0XAvk0YsRsEaLbSfdZKc

Did I ask you to continue providing studies? Agenda? Good luck, friend.

I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?

Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.

Link a study showing what?

Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:

that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.

Impossible has more salt than beef, but less saturated fat.

And?

Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that

Some authors have criticised the concept of “ultra-processed foods” as poorly defined

The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.

It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.

No, it does not.

The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of “Ultra-Processed Foods” is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.

While the oreos you’re using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we’re discussing don’t, as they are “processed” to include those constituents.