Are there no other banks in your area?..

But more bioavailability. People always forget that factor.

And that’s assuming the vegetables are raw, of course, because they lose a lot of the nutrients when cooked as well.

Fruits are a better source usually.

But milk has it’s own “farm” section too, so that doesn’t make sense. It would make more sense to get rid of milk and cheese sections and combine them with dairy herd, but then that stat doesn’t make sense because it seems it would be way higher than the beef herd.

Why is it cruel if they’re unfertilized eggs? I mean you could leave them, but then you’ll just have a bunch of rotten eggs everywhere.

There’s a cold, dark calculation I’m sure Iran has done which probably determines less people = more water.

After killing the protestors (which btw, Trump was too stupid to support so good luck on that rEgImE chAngE) plus casualties from war simply happening, there’s more water for the remaining.

So even though they’ve lost some water supply, they’ve also lost population, balancing things out.

I was thinking more they’d do it to get what food remains or they’d starve.

The starving have nothing to lose, slave or not.

Nah, he doesn’t have a huge Christian following / congregations supporting him, such is actually one of the requirements for Anti-Christ.

No joke Trump fits it extremely well. He even was essentially given a golden calf.

You can disagree gravity is real too. Am opinion is not a fact.

Austin, read what I did. I’m not disagreeing with your first sentence. I’m just explaining to you why this very much of a political article.

I get that it’s a news article, yes. It’s a political one though. Political news is still news and would therefore be valid for a news community.

Non political news would be something like “scientists discover new animal species that flows n the dark” or “multiple cats have disappeared at the same time in this neighborhood”.

I’m just giving you an fyi because it seems it’s your intention to not post political stuff and you seem to be having a bit of trouble discerning what’s political and what isn’t. At least, if you want to be that “change” you claim. Anything involving a politician and a government is definitely political, especially if it involves a political motive (in this case, ending or slowing actions on an illegal war) and will therefore attract political discussion. In this case, the politician being the US president and the government being Iran.

If it was an assassination attempt of a non-politician by someone not involved with a government, done for non political reasons, it would just be regular news, not political news.

This isn’t a random crime though. I don’t think the president of the united states’ gets valid, state funded assassination attempts often. That’s what makes this political. And political news is still news, so that alone wouldn’t invalidate this being posted on a news community.

Thanks, that’s all I wanted to know.

Probably should add this to your post so others won’t keep questioning it and realize you are absolutist on this position btw, not someone with exceptions.

So yes, or no? A no simply means that indeed, you do not “advocate for violence”. It’s just a clarification confirming that, no matter what possible scenario happens, you still won’t support the use of violence.

Not clarifying that, while stating “no matter what you say or ask” is non-committal, as if you’re trying to give an answer that excludes the possibility of self defense but don’t want to admit it simply so that you appear pacifista absoluto.

Well if what I worded isn’t violence, please, enlighten me - how would you define violence, and what would the scenario I proposed be classified as?

I’m trying to accommodate for any disability you might have, assuming good faith argument, which is the opposite of ableist. Because the alternative at this point is that you are discussing in bad faith.

Now, if you could clarify, what “feature” are you even referring to?

It involves the attempted assassination of a prominent political figure, ergo, political.

Then that means you would allow it to happen? I mean heck, that’s the case, I applaud you for sticking to your belief all the way, even when faced with death.

You’re not really answering the question. If what you say is true, then that means you would not defend yourself or a loved one against violence? Simple yes, or no. Saying no simply confirms your stated stance.

I’m literally offering to do Dyslexia Type for you, and other possible solutions, because I’m legit starting to question if you have a condition that needs assistance.

I’m assuming good faith discussion for once here, though I’m severely starting to doubt you have good faith.

Btw, you responded to the wrong comment. And you still haven’t explained what feature you were talking about. I’m guessing because of the screenshot you mean parks still rather than tax deductions, but you need to clarify that.

Why don’t you answer the questions? Let’s agree to disagree is just a deflection technique.