Falling3

I see this pretty frequently even in business communications with native speakers. Even using apostrophes for pluralizing is surprisingly common.

> Google opens themselves up to huge liability if they inadvertently do business with a minor, which is why they're so paranoid about the lock-out.

What liability is that? Genuinely asking because I've never heard that concern.

Sure, that sounds interesting and unsurprising. But was any of it believed by Christians?

> we do understand what we’re doing and choose to do it anyways

Seems like you glossed right over the most important part of their comment.

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.

And you believe that's due to innate differences and not anything about the environments in which these disparities arise?

You think no comments within 20 minutes of posting is enough to make that kind of claim over?

> at best you’d end up with a Ship of Theseus

As long as it doesn't cause an existential crisis for the shoe, that doesn't sound like a downside.

The "i" only exists in one of the addresses.

> 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.