Meaning The findings from this trial suggest that a healthy plant-based diet offers a significant protective cardiometabolic advantage compared with a healthy omnivorous diet.

Ok. But what does that mean? “Cardiometabolic advantage”?

Thinking itself is not easy for many, and that doesn’t even include the critical .

I think that’s two different things. Billionaires can and do get continuously richer also when there are napkins in a restaurant to satisfy customers.

Actually, satisfied customers are return customers, which every businessman knows are the best customers. Amazon certainly knows that. The reason why Amazon is so succesful is because they focus intensely on customer satisfaction. They’re fucking their employers, yes, but they wouldn’t need to. They just do because the regulations allow for it.

According to your statement there must be someone getting fucked. An trade where all parties are satisfied does not seem possible.

I understand. You refuse to accept something that is fairly obvious for many Lemmy users and want to put a burden of proof on me, and because I don’t want to take on additional work for someone I neither know nor agree with, you are happy to keep your opinion, as am I to keep mine.

Introducing regulations usually doesn’t mean complete and utter ban.

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

So guns changed over the past 100 years, but the laws did not adjust. Sounds like a bad idea. How can a new technology a cause for a new problem? Did that ever happen???/s

Semi-automatic rifles were not overly widespread before the 1990, and when they became, in 1994 there was a time-limited ban for semi-automatic firearms, which then expired in 2004. And what are the major concerns for mass shootings in recent years? It is semi-automatic firearms.

If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Why do you think they want to ban all guns? But when you’ve a gun proponents such as in the US you gotta get real about what you can achieve. So it is not hypocrisy to focus on assault weaponry.

That hobby thing can be said about many forbidden things, for example smoking cannabis.

“Just ban guns” is the slogan for demonstrations. Any politician who is elected for doing that will obviously need to have a better plan. Usually such plans don’t fit on a poster.

Civilian disarmamends happened in various countries, i.e. Australia in 1996/97, UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, Japan post WW2, South Africa in 2000, Colombia in 2000 and 2016, New Zealand after Christchurch.

Strategies and success vary, but it’s not unheard of.

Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.

Could you elaborate that a bit?

What country is that?

Ok, Stalin

Oh there certainly is. You gotta read those comment threads yourself.

It’s popped up in this one, too. It’s really curious how you can read and write enough to answer here, but not see that.

What’s your view on Trump?

That’s very abstract and doesn’t mean much. With as many words you can say capitalism is based on scientific reasoning.

I’m not even American yet still in “the west”, and refuse to be identified by American subpar ways of determining people in power.

Just to understand what you are saying, do you say communists apply scientific reasoning?

Here are some properties of any conspiracy theory worth it’s name:

• Closed Ideological Systems: They provide an all-encompassing explanation for various events or states, with everything fitting into their worldview.
• Immunity to Facts: Any contrary evidence is dismissed as false or considered part of the conspiracy.
• Enemy Construction: They tend to draw a clear line between “us” (those who “know the truth”) and “them” (the supposed conspirators).
• Adaptability: Conspiracy narratives can change and incorporate new “evidence” or events to maintain their credibility.

It matches for QAnon and the MAGA crowd as well as the lemmygrad crowd.

Given the comment you’re just responding to, that’s a level of not-self-reflection that’s usually reserved to /r/selfawarewolfs or the like.

Another repeating problem is the vast generalizations. Treating “the West” as if they’re all Bush Jr. or Reagan.