Not a vegan, but like what are we doing? One google search and its ~1,800 liters to produce the feed that translates to 1 pound of chicken meat from conventional broiler chickens. Between avocados and chickens, around the same percent of the water is green, with more blue water for avocados and more grey water for chickens.
Not a vegan, but like what are we doing? One google search and its ~1,800 liters to produce the feed that translates to 1 pound of chicken meat from conventional broiler chickens. Between avocados and chicken feed, around the same percent of the water is green, with more blue water for avocados and more grey water for chickens.
Not a vegan, but like what are we doing? One google search and its ~1,800 liters to produce the feed that translates to 1 pound of chicken meat from conventional broiler chickens. Between avocados and chicken feed, around the same percent of the water is green, with more blue water for avocados and more grey water for chickens.
The Joker, who is honest this time, kidnaps you and 2 others to play a game. He puts you guys in a triangle and gives you all a Bluetooth gun to point at the head of the person on your right. He gives the option to shoot at 3-2-1-shoot. If the majority (2 or 3) shoot, then no gun will go off. Do you shoot?
Nobody is allowed to communicate or deviate from the options. Shooting increases the likelihood that you and other shooters survive. But it also goes against an assumption that we morally expect nobody to shoot us or somebody else, so therefore we shouldn’t shoot as well. My strong opinion is that nobody should shoot because of the latter reasoning. Also, I think this reasoning carries over to the red-blue-button version where you press the button for the person behind you. You should press red for them.
Edit: Its a hypothetical, so please do not assume he's lying. It's just like it isn't fair to assume the creators of the button game are lying.
Hey all logicians. Logic is a great tool to manage ideas and make debate coherent. When learning about logic and argumentation, I realized a lot of the real world is stunted intellectually on the fundamentals of the discipline. When you find a formal contradiction in someone's beliefs, instead of admitting their inconsistency or incoherency they will straight up just deny logic. What do you have to say about this? Do you have any stories?
Edit: I'm talking mostly about debate setting. Like someone trying to argue that Socrates is immortal even though they affirmed that all men are mortal and Socrates is a man.