Roflmasterbigpimp to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 17 days agoMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldimagemessage-square459fedilinkarrow-up1591arrow-down1101
arrow-up1490arrow-down1imageMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldRoflmasterbigpimp to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 17 days agomessage-square459fedilink
minus-square@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilink4•17 days agoso the headline that is used on the site, and the excerpt used to create the link in this thread both need some heavy caveats. without proper context, both the claims made by them are actually false.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish-1•17 days agoWithout reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose.
minus-square@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilink4•17 days agowhich seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish-1•17 days agoMaybe to you… To me it seems like you’re trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet
minus-square@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilink2•17 days agowe haven’t said anything about my diet. i’m talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish0•17 days agoNo you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying
minus-square@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilink2•17 days ago you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i’d prefer if you didn’t make tihs personal.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish0•17 days agoI’m not trying to make this about you, i’m just trying to respond to what I think you’re trying to argue that you didn’t explicitly say
minus-square@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilink2•17 days ago I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis.
so the headline that is used on the site, and the excerpt used to create the link in this thread both need some heavy caveats. without proper context, both the claims made by them are actually false.
Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose.
which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked.
Maybe to you… To me it seems like you’re trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet
we haven’t said anything about my diet. i’m talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context.
No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying
i never made this about myself at all. i’d prefer if you didn’t make tihs personal.
I’m not trying to make this about you, i’m just trying to respond to what I think you’re trying to argue that you didn’t explicitly say
then kindly leave me out of your analysis.