Anecdotal, but I've never met or even heard of a Christian who believed in the virgin birth but thought it was the result of a natural process. Are there any examples of that you're aware of?
I was going to chime in with the same thing. I do this as well, particularly while browsing on mobile. It's an extra click, but I can leave off at the very least the TLD and get better spell checking.
Yup. It's frustrating neoliberal nonsense to be so concerned with increasing diversity in roles that shouldn't even exist while ignoring the widespread impacts of sexism and racism.
> The key is to make sure the plant protein is complete, which is why pea protein and legumes are preferred over things like soy.
1. I thought we were done pushing the complete protein thing? All the essential amino acids are essential (duh), but don't need to be consumed together like once thought.
2. With that said, soy is a complete protein.
3. Soy is also a legume.
> Put into context that "carbon footprint" was a slogan invented by the fossil fuel industry, and its clear who is served by shifting the blame to cows.
We should absolutely be scrutinizing the fossil fuel industry. There's also no reason to _shift_ blame; both can be blamed at the same time. Ulterior motives behind the origin of carbon footprints does not negate the impact of our diets - particularly animal agriculture.
>I always like to point out that before the Europeans decimated the American bison, there were more head of bison roaming the west than there are head of cattle today.
I don't think that's true. Most estimates of the peak Bison population I've seen put them at about 30 million. Some estimates are as high as 60 million. Today, we have about 94 million head of cattle down from a peak of 104.
Additionally, your linked article is incredibly unconvincing. It's riddled with Appeals to Nature and attempts to use a single instance of questionable behavior by a single company to poison the well for all alternatives to raising animals for slaughter.
I completely understand avoiding Facebook; I haven't deleted my account yet, but I've been off it for the past year and a half. I also understand it not being your choice for a people meeting platform. But there is such a variety of users there - I think it's a bit silly for you to think that there's no one there you'd be willing to befriend on Facebook.
> As someone in that cohort who was also there for the "glory" days of early FB (when you had to have a college email to sign up), I have to agree that at this point the idea of making friends on FB weirds me out. How? Why?
I was a freshman when Facebook was introduced and required a .edu email. I've used it on and off since the beginning. I've made lots of friends there - both local and in other states/countries. It usually comes down to interactions in groups for niche interests. Why is this so striking to you?
> Everything that applies to a fetus also applies to a coma patient dependent on life support
Except that coma patients are not dependent on another specific individual to stay alive. If one needed your kidney to live, but you refused and they died, you would not be responsible for their death.
> It has human DNA unique from the mother and, in this case, an independent heartbeat.
I don't know why people use DNA uniqueness as a qualifier of anything. Are identical twins and clones not alive? Heartbeats aren't a measure of life either and, at 6 weeks, there is still no functioning heart. So despite the colloquial usage of the term, there is no heartbeat.
I believe the burden of proof would be the other way around. It's not hard though to establish a pattern if all gay people are refused service. Even in a singular instance, if you are willing to help a customer after seeing their shirt, but wait until discovering their orientation to refuse helping them, that makes a pretty strong argument it's about the latter and not the former.