Same actually. But I later discovered the reason why I don’t like raw onions is because I have an allergy that gives me migraines when I eat them. Cooking them is fine and delicious though.

But yeah, used to be teased incessantly by family for being “Picky.”

No, that’s not how that works. Your own personal experience is fine and valid, but try not to make the assumption it’s true for anyone else.

POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO!

Only because the boundary has been set to include genuine adults. That boundary SHOULD be pushed.

Sure, I’m not against that at all. I hate advertisements and would take no issue with a universal ban. My problem was with the arbitrary moral outrage at this advertisement targeting “Children,” by virtue of the utterly meaningless phrase “Under Age,” which includes actual, legitimate adults, in the US.

Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at “Children” by nature of using the term “Under Age.” I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.

Below drinking age, sure. I think the nonsense here is that the US considers you “Under age” until you’re 21. So you’re complaining about an ad targeting children, when the target is literally “Anybody under the age of 21.” Which is an unfair complaint to make.

Because using that same logic, “under age” porn is actually legal. Because at 18 you can get fucked in the ass by 3 dudes at once, but not buy a beer.

I hear you say “But there are different ages for X and Y.” Yeah, but it’s the exact same term used to mean the same idea with completely different ranges and neither has any justification beyond “Uh… Here’s the cut-off I guess?”

Would you take issue with 18yr olds having beer ads aimed at them? Because that’s technically “Under Age Beer!” And they’d be considered full adults here in Germany.

Except the US concept of underage also includes people 16 to 20, which this ad is undoubtedly target towards. If it was an ad for beer with bright colours and cartoon characters I would agree, but it is not.

So 19yr olds shouldn’t be advertised to? What’s the cut off?

I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.

But lacking that, I don’t see an issue with advertising universally. And if we’re going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. “Teenagers” includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.

I’m pretty sure young and impressionable children get used to the idea of drinking beer from friends and family. I think the bigger issue is that the drinking age is fucking 21. It’s absolutely nonsense. If you want to protect children from alcohol abuse, talk to them, teach them, let them have alcohol when they’re ready to try it, in safe settings.

From my experience, most people assign deeper meaning and claims of consciousness simply because they do not have a grasp of molecular biology. Or if they do, it’s rudimentary. Not as an insult against them, just as a matter of fact.

Cells are 100% molecular machines. It’s why viruses works. The virus doesn’t actually hurt the cell, it just changes it’s programming so it makes viruses instead.

If you worked in a kitchen, and a new order came in that said “Chop off all your fingers, then disembowel yourself.” You wouldn’t do it. A cell would. So would an ant. So would a plant.

You’re assigning human values and desires simply because it’s what you experience. By that same logic, you should be claiming LLMs and even the most basic old-school AI in videogames is conscious.

Physics mandates that the universe move towards its lowest energy state possible. This causes the formation of molecules that allow a release of energy. Some of these have a structure that tends them towards a shape, granting an interior and exterior. Some of these molecules are self-replicating, like proteins.

Now we have proto-life, with self replicating proteins inside the hydrophobic/philic sphere.

Lil tiny skip forward a billion years or so, and we have basic cells with no interiority, but chemical and molecular systems that are 100% reactionary. They actively move towards survival and away from death. Not because they are aware, because those lineages survived when the ones that sat idle and did nothing did not.

It’s easy to see motion as a sign of intelligence, even organization. But crystals are not alive. A cell is alive. Neither is conscious.

Unless you believe in magic, then no amount of science, logic, or conversation, matters.

Fair enough, no further comments.

Who are you giving advice to? I don’t think Bernie can hear you, and even if he could, I’m 99% sure he would passionately explain precisely why you’re wrong and the methodology behind his decision.

Wow, that’s extremely offensive! How dare you steal my hometown’s unique and clever slogan?!

That’s shifting the goal post to cost, and not answering my question. Humans domesticated chickens long before factory farming existed. Animals breed of their own volition. There ARE farms that are only end-of-life slaughter. Do not force their animals to breed, provide excellent lives, etc. Who cares if it’s inefficient? That wasn’t the question. I’m going to ask the same question again. Are you universally against ALL animal products on principle, or would you be okay with goats cheese, as an example, if you could be certain it had a phenomenal life?

And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

Yes, I agree that factory farming is horrific. Yes, I agree that people should eat less meat. Yes, I agree people need to be more aware of where their products come from.

However, just because you neighbor beats his dog doesn’t mean everyone does.

And I repeat the same question I ask every time. Are you universally against ALL forms of animal domestication and husbandry? Eg. A small hobby farm that keeps a few chickens for eggs, and a few goats for milk.

That’s an argument for vegetarianism, not veganism. What about wool, honey, milk, eggs. And different countries have different mechanisms. Using the USA as a basis, is admittedly a bad example.

Here in Germany, there are very strict regulations on how living conditions can be claimed, ranging from 1(literal torture) to 5(outdoor access, pasture raised etc.) I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but I can’t agree that it’s impossible and pointless to try when there are places actively trying and actively supporting l.

Actually, counter-intuitively, strict veganism would objectively increase animal suffering if authentic alternatives exist. Which they do. But they are admittedly not easy to find. Ethical farms do exist, and typically self-regulate and self-support by selling the products the animals produce. Wool clothes, free-range eggs, end-of-life meat, excess milk & honey, etc. If your only 2 options are torture products, or nothing, then yes I 100% agree that veganism would be the correct choice. Between these 3 options though, giving your money to an ethical farmer objectively increases the livelihood of the animals under its care, more so than complete avoidance.

You didn’t answer my question. Would you/do you support the ethical and mutually beneficial raising of animals? Chickens for eggs, milk for dairy animals. No abuse, good healthcare, no premature slaughter, etc.?

Edit. I just realized I’m not responding to the same person. But the deflection still stands.