So. Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong?
It seemed pretty obvious the the initial conclusion of "people eat less meat in cities" is a true statement. This is due to me have a basic, 101 understanding of how population demographics work, and understanding that people living in a city are more likely to be liberal, and therefore eat less meat.
So, do you understand the evidence now, and why you were completely incorrect to give doubt over such an obviously true conclusion, that anyone with any basic knowledge of demographics would understand?
Nobody needed to give evidence in the first place for this. It is obviously true.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/22/american...
So. Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong?
It seemed pretty obvious the the initial conclusion of "people eat less meat in cities" is a true statement. This is due to me have a basic, 101 understanding of how population demographics work, and understanding that people living in a city are more likely to be liberal, and therefore eat less meat.
So, do you understand the evidence now, and why you were completely incorrect to give doubt over such an obviously true conclusion, that anyone with any basic knowledge of demographics would understand?
Nobody needed to give evidence in the first place for this. It is obviously true.