The scientists are from Nigeria, one of the largest producers of palm oil, so it could be in their nationalistic interest to dismiss palm oil health concerns to promote their international exports.
That’s a valid point, but it could be that they’re looking at the global reaction to something they’ve consumed locally for thousands of years with consternation and wanted to investigate it.
I'll stick with doing what the mainstream tells me until and unless the mainstream changes.
That feels like it might have sounded different in your head or I’m not understanding what you mean. There have been many examples of an incredibly unhealthy thing being very mainstream (lead, more than once, but also arsenic, radium, and mercury, for some of the most egregious examples, but pharmaceutical history is also full of this), so I don’t know why you would want to default to the mainstream on this if that’s what you did mean.
whether palm olein is a better substitute for soybean oil is a separate question from whether the solid palm oil is a better substitute for butter, which the Nigerian paper just lumps all in the same category
This is also a fair criticism, and I wish there were more research.
Very young children like fairness (so young that this is observed rather than gleaned from interviews), so I wouldn’t be surprised if the same preference for fairness was present in other intelligent social animals
But Clarence Thomas accepted gifts from people who then argued in front of the Supreme Court without recusing himself without facing any consequences, so is there anything to stop it?
I’m not the other person, but that’s obviously not helpful and simply makes you look immature. Either explain where you think someone’s gone wrong or leave out the “hope that helps.” Or don’t, and everyone reading is reminded of that scene from the big Lebowski
exCUSE me? I explained how 9000 lumens into the eyeball is the ideal lighting and if you disagree, you’re just fooling yourself. It’s not my fault that my superior knowledge about the inefficiency of other lighting is seen as close minded.
Not really. It’s people who enjoy art of personified/anthropomorphized animals. Sometimes it’s sexual, sometimes it involves personas and costumes, sometimes it’s just rabbits in bankers’ outfits. It’s viewed as weird by a lot of people because they assume it’s all costumes and sex, but looney tunes technically also counts, so it’s much more widespread than people identifying with it is.
That’s a valid point, but it could be that they’re looking at the global reaction to something they’ve consumed locally for thousands of years with consternation and wanted to investigate it.
That feels like it might have sounded different in your head or I’m not understanding what you mean. There have been many examples of an incredibly unhealthy thing being very mainstream (lead, more than once, but also arsenic, radium, and mercury, for some of the most egregious examples, but pharmaceutical history is also full of this), so I don’t know why you would want to default to the mainstream on this if that’s what you did mean.
This is also a fair criticism, and I wish there were more research.
To be fair, it was more like:
Poster: this has been forced on us, which is unfair (in a community for complaints)
You: check your privilege, some people have language barriers
Other commenters: this is how I get around language barriers/what language barriers do you encounter?
You: let’s not be Reddit
Hosmer Mountain all the way
Well there would be fewer greedy people to hog up all the coolant water for the data centers
Also, even aside from the transphobia and general shittiness, grow a goddamn spine and ask someone out yourself
Very young children like fairness (so young that this is observed rather than gleaned from interviews), so I wouldn’t be surprised if the same preference for fairness was present in other intelligent social animals
He does look very snouty
He’s clearly young Castro. Maybe a relative of Trudeau’s…
Fun quote from that article, you absolute scholar
But Clarence Thomas accepted gifts from people who then argued in front of the Supreme Court without recusing himself without facing any consequences, so is there anything to stop it?
It was a pun about the word “discriminate” (the verb)
I don’t know if racism can be indiscriminate…
And yet I participate in society, how curious.
I’m not the other person, but that’s obviously not helpful and simply makes you look immature. Either explain where you think someone’s gone wrong or leave out the “hope that helps.” Or don’t, and everyone reading is reminded of that scene from the big Lebowski
I honestly don’t know what the law is, is “pussy” printable in newspapers?
exCUSE me? I explained how 9000 lumens into the eyeball is the ideal lighting and if you disagree, you’re just fooling yourself. It’s not my fault that my superior knowledge about the inefficiency of other lighting is seen as close minded.
I’m sorry, my last knowledge update does not address this area. If you’re looking for specific medical advice, please consult a doctor.
Not really. It’s people who enjoy art of personified/anthropomorphized animals. Sometimes it’s sexual, sometimes it involves personas and costumes, sometimes it’s just rabbits in bankers’ outfits. It’s viewed as weird by a lot of people because they assume it’s all costumes and sex, but looney tunes technically also counts, so it’s much more widespread than people identifying with it is.
Why can’t you walk half a mile?
That’s a quote from my comment that you replied to.