0daystock

You miss the point: reducing protein intake to the small required amount is what is optimal for health.

Fad diet? Until recent history, and coincidentally before the prevalence of vast diet-related disease, most of the world lived on a mostly vegan diet. You are welcome to cite some of this advanced scientific evidence refuting McDougall or suggesting protein deficiency is a concern anywhere in the Western world.

Flawed argument because animals still eat 10x the amount of plants vegans do. So if plant suffering was a legitimate concern, one would still be vegan, which is a lifestyle to reduce harm to animals.

False equivalence and other logical fallacies like it lead to all sorts of stupid and abhorrent human behaviors, two of which you just described.

You seem capable of looking up the definition of "survival" on your own. Anyway, this discussion is not worth having on this oppressive site, because any controversial opinion is just flagged and censored by the majority of fragile-ego dimwits.

I already said I agreed survival is justification for eating animals. But this is not survival, this is sport, because they have a choice to eat something other than animals and still thrive.

That is not by accident. The history of gun control in the USA (and mostly elsewhere) is deeply rooted in racism and classism. The very idea of an armed minority challenging the status quo terrifies individuals living lives of relative privilege and prosperity. Even if they don't consciously apprehend their bias (and most lack the emotional and spiritual maturity to do so), they are useful in promoting the false narrative of "only the State must monopolize power" as they are the benefactors of it.

There is one gun store in all of Mexico and a two-tier ownership/permitting system where only the oligarchy class actually has rights to arms. No wonder it isn't safe when the average person is deprived of the means to defend themselves.

Linux is not a "safe" operating system by any stretch of imagination. The only saving grace is the fact Linux users are not profitable to malware authors due to very low market share. Still, I think it's naive to view it as a secure operating system/kernel because it is not designed nor built for that goal explicitly. OpenBSD on the other hand is a worthy contender against a determined adversary and is developed by skilled and highly paranoid people.

Almost all happened in Latin America where individual rights, including to own and defend yourself with potent firearms, is severely limited (except for agents of the state). Without this fundamental ability and political right, lawful good individuals will suffer and fail. History is replete with examples of this basic and obvious fact. Armed minorities are more difficult to oppress.

No, I don't think anything is safe from a determined adversary with near-infinite resources, especially if they are specifically targeting you. This is a basic tenet of infosec.