Next you’re going to tell me people aren’t signing on to “Arabian Gulf”

I really can’t tell what “raised” means

“Raising a rifle” has a single fairly unambiguous meaning to most people I know; although we have only the story’s word for that being what happened, it’s not like a confusing type of description of events, along with the other elements (him retrieving the rifle instead of having it carried with him, running towards the crowd ignoring people trying to talk with him, and so on.) I actually think they did a pretty good job of explaining the circumstances which sort of clearly point to one conclusion, without doing anything other than presenting the factual circumstances.

There isn’t enough information in this story to infer intent.

If we assume that what’s in the story is accurate, then yes, to me there is.

And I definitely can’t deduce the political leaning of someone barely mentioned

Correct. So why did you speculate that he may have been a leftist? I never said anything about his political leaning or the underlying motives.

Going through brutal things will destroy your empathy. I am fine with this guy standing trial for his crime but I don’t think it was really “his fault” at the end of the day after how he grew up.

Some people have strong character and they can turn out fine no matter how you treat them. Some people, you can give every opportunity in the world to, and they’re still going to turn towards the dark. For most people, it’s down to circumstances.

That’s why it is important to create good circumstances. The schools, the police, the meeting places where people hang out, the shops and the structure of the economy. It all has to serve the good, it has to be alive with life. Because the people who are in it will be molded.

Who was so enthusiastic he felt like he had to raise his rifle and move towards the crowd with it, to show his enthusiasm?

I think he was about as leftist as the people on Lemmy who were super vocal about Gaza and the US economy, before the election, and then moved on and stopped caring about any of those issues or their relationship to the US presidential administration as soon as the election happened.

It’s literally in the subtitle: “Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, 39, was apparently shot by member of event’s peacekeeping team.” And then at the beginning of the story, it explains in detail the situation, which honestly wasn’t all that complex, a short direct event with 3 people involved in it. I and apparently all the downvoters managed to read it and make perfect sense of it.

You just couldn’t understand it because of your prejudices. You can only draw one type of conclusion in this type of situation, and this wasn’t it, so you couldn’t comprehend and reached a totally different conclusion and then broadcasted it to everyone who would listen. It had nothing to do with passive voice. And now, you’re doubling down on the same prejudices that led you to be unable to read the article and make sense of the clear explanation. That’s why I was kind of blunt with you: Because you’re going to keep failing to understand the world, sometimes in situations that are a lot less clear-cut and immediately obvious than this one, for as long as you cling to those prejudices (which are pretty popular prejudices to cling to in the modern left.)

As it happens, the world is more complex than your pre-established prejudices you jump to. The police’s action was to find and arrest the actual shooter, which is, believe it or not, a good thing.

The peacekeepers were, I believe, working with the protest organizers. They have people in bright vests keeping people in the right designated areas, attending to emergencies, or giving armed response when shit goes down.

You have no idea how psyched I am that they are armed. Well, not happy that this is where we’ve ended up, but about the fact that they’re out there ready to defend the people. This isn’t the first video I’ve seen about them jumping into action with this sort of “armed maniac” situation.

Click the image title, the preview that gets served along with the comments is downsampled to save bandwidth and basically unreadable for things like this. It’s Lemmy, it’s not OP.

Everyone wants to do an Operation Praying Mantis, and walk into the briefing room the next day and yell “WHAT’S UP NOW” and then run the meetings from then on. I suspect that it’s a strong motivating factor behind a lot of things which actually aren’t in the best interests of any country from the standpoint of the people in the country.

Also, the current US president at least has been fine with US forces directly blowing up Iranians and Iranian installations. (Also, for the matter, with Iranians blowing up Americans.) It’s only within the brute logic of geopolitics that they can say with a straight face that Iran “must not” attack Americans.

I was once on a farm, laughing at something, and a horsefly came up and bit me on the tongue.

I had no idea why it happened, still don’t, but it was one of the worst things that had ever happened to me at that point in my life.

And what will it do to a person?

In her case, it made her physically weak, she had trouble thinking, and she became irritable and unreasonable. Basically physically, mentally, and emotionally it made her worse.

I mean it does make sense to me. Your body needs energy to function and getting it from complex carbohydrates is a standard way and it’s going to struggle if it doesn’t have that available. As I understand it, the no-carb diets are sort of well known to produce that kind of impact, although I can definitely believe that there could be people who are having a bad reaction to some particular substance that they’re eating so that cutting out all carbs entirely will give them a good result because they’re also not being exposed to that substance, I don’t think that kind of thing is in general a good thing for the average healthy person to do.

No, not largely meat - Exclusively meat - yes. But that is just my opinion and we don’t need to keep talking in circles about it. The problem with Largely is that sugar and carbs will creep in, and all the associated chronic non-communicable diseases they bring.

I mean that’s pretty easy to study. Take a big random sample of people, randomly assign half of them to try that diet, and see what happens.

All I really know is my sample size of 1 person I know who tried that, and she got all fucked up because not eating carbs will do that to a person. But that’s not really all that scientific.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/red-meat-and-colon-cancer-the-evidence-remains-weak

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat

This articles are very well cited (hover over the numbers for the publications)

I read some of the cites and I’m not convinced. It seems mostly like an exercise in misleading citation, taking studies which indicate a lack of indication of one particular factor of X, and claiming that they find definitively that X does not occur, which isn’t the same thing.

I’m not in the US.

Got it. Some of what I’m saying about the health risks of meat may not apply in a country with better food standards. I think it’s moderately weird that for all the studies and effort that’s been spent on this, this doesn’t seem to be a chief area of investigation when people talk about the health impacts of eating meat.

• Is sustainable antibiotic free range grass fed meat better then farm meat? Yes
• Is farm meat better then processed food? Yes
• Is farm meat better then farm veggies? Yes (but clearly our opinions differ)

None of these are the question. The question is, “Is it a good idea for a first-world society inhabitant to replace their diet with a largely-meat diet?”

I’ve not seen bad health outcome studies based on meat itself, I’ve seen speculative mechanistic appeals, I don’t find that compelling

Here’s a pretty comprehensive attempt to address the issues you’re talking about with epidemiological studies:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6971786/

Meat, by virtue of not being a plant has no toxins, no pesticides - both of which some people react to

This is absolutely false. Cows eat plants, and any pesticides in the plants can bioaccumulate in the cow so that it winds up with more pesticide than you would have gotten from just eating the plant in the first place. It’s one of the problems with eating meat in the modern world.

This has some links to various high-level explanation: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/how-to-shop-for-safer-healthier-meat-a1124955526/

It was actually pretty difficult for me to find a study about this that was (1) from the US and (2) not on some site that was clearly trying to promote one side of the battle or the other. But Consumer Reports is pretty trustworthy, to me.

You have to decide if correlation is important to you or not.

I have explained my thought process, why I think you need to be cautious about assuming correlation is causation when there is a clearly obvious alternative explanation for the correlation, but you can accept epidemiology in general instead of throwing out any study that relies on correlation as any part of its argument.

If not, then there is no smoking gun against meat. If correlation matters then there are opposing epidemiology to consider.

Opposing epidemiology that to me is hilariously weak and implausible, yes. I considered it.

I’m not aware of any problems with low grade meat.

You really should be. It’s not just an issue with “low grade” meat. If you’re in the US, you should know that most of the world won’t even import our meat products because they are so full of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, and all kinds of other fun stuff that they are illegal to sell in other first world societies. Do you really not know this?

Now consider a modern adult with T2D (which is a billion people right now), carnivore by virtue of having zero carbohydrates is one of the best possible interventions for them to manage or even reverse their T2D

Context matters - Any dietary intervention is better then the sugar heavy, processed food, standard western diet. Even low grade factory farmed meat is better then pop-tarts and cheerios, yes?

Reducing the amount of pure garbage that someone consumes is going to help them, yes. If you’re advocating for replacing the garbage with meat, and then give credit to the meat because of the lack of garbage is helping them, I don’t think that makes a ton of sense.

Great, I 100% agree, to your previous post about all the science being against red meat because of cancer risk, can you point out the non-correlated (non-epidemiology) that demonstrates this risk?

The study actually talks about this. They point out some correlations with BMI where the meat diet is probably not the issue, and then they point out some other health issues where they can’t find an obvious correlation with anything else and so provisionally it is maybe okay to blame the meat.

I’m just pointing out that in all your studies I looked at there was an instant 2-seconds-of-thinking correlation that was more likely the cause than meat consumption, and it didn’t seem like the study was addressing that. It kind of looks like someone is aiming to prove that meat is healthy, and grasping around for anything they can find that will demonstrate that, when most of the science I’m aware of (again, based on consuming the type of meat that’s available in a modern first world society) says the opposite.

If we want to quibble about which diet has optimal health outcomes - then we are already winning! I think most people would benefit from whole food (single ingredient), non processed, sustainably produced food for their diet.

Absolutely agree. I actually personally suspect that almost all the bad health outcomes according to modern science from eating too much meat would evaporate if the people were consuming healthy untainted meat. But, also, I think you have to be aware of that and communicate it if you’re advocating for someone to eat a lot of meat when it’s likely that what they’re going to be eating is tainted.

1. Of course giving protein to Kenyan children is going to improve their performance at everything, that’s not surprising to me. People need protein and if you’re giving some of it to some of them who probably aren’t getting plenty of it already, it’ll help them. That doesn’t directly have a bearing on whether a first-world adult choosing to consume only meat is going to improve anything for them.
2. Correlation is not causation, both meat consumption and overall life expectancy are going to be highly correlated with societal wealth. That’s not surprising to me, it doesn’t directly have a bearing on whether a first-world adult choosing to consume only meat is going to improve anything for them.
3. That’s a social media survey of people self-reporting consuming a carnivore diet and asking them to self-report their health level. It’s not surprising to me that they self-report that the carnivore diet is having good effects for them.
4. Correlation is not causation.

On average, participants who reported consuming meat regularly (three or more times per week) had more adverse health behaviours and characteristics than participants who consumed meat less regularly, and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI) Cox regression models corrected for multiple testing, higher consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat combined was associated with higher risks of ischaemic heart disease (hazard ratio (HRs) per 70 g/day higher intake 1.15, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.07–1.23), pneumonia (1.31, 1.18–1.44), diverticular disease (1.19, 1.11–1.28), colon polyps (1.10, 1.06–1.15), and diabetes (1.30, 1.20–1.42); results were similar for unprocessed red meat and processed meat intakes separately. Higher consumption of unprocessed red meat alone was associated with a lower risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA: HR per 50 g/day higher intake 0.80, 95% CIs 0.72–0.90). Higher poultry meat intake was associated with higher risks of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (HR per 30 g/day higher intake 1.17, 95% CIs 1.09–1.26), gastritis and duodenitis (1.12, 1.05–1.18), diverticular disease (1.10, 1.04–1.17), gallbladder disease (1.11, 1.04–1.19), and diabetes (1.14, 1.07–1.21), and a lower IDA risk (0.83, 0.76–0.90).

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9

That’s just the first random thing I found. Again, I am sure that a lot of that has to do with the low quality of the meat available in modern factory-farm-driven societies. I’m just saying that if you’re advocating for people eating meat, and they live in that type of society, they’re going to be fucking themselves up by eating lots of the type of meat that is available to them in that society.

Any type of person that survives in a harsh environment where death is an ever-present outcome will generally be strong and healthy on an individual basis. It’s natural selection. If they’re not hardy, they don’t survive, so the ones that are left are healthy.

I’m not saying that there’s no way to eat exclusively meat and have it work out. I’m just saying that (a) you’re choosing an example that doesn’t apply all that well to making an argument about how to eat in the modern world (b) the industrially farmed meat that’s available in the modern world, definitely in the US at least, is pure poison compared to what any ancient society you’re studying was eating.

Every study in the modern world that I’m aware of has drawn conclusions of severe negative health consequences from eating too much of the type of meat that’s available to us now.

The Inuit didn’t exist for thousands of years in the arctic circle eating only animals to spite vegans.

Their population is sparse and they had absolutely no energy to spare to expand or rise up in the world, they were too busy with the incredible energy expenditure that is hunting. They didn’t choose to do this as a success option, they just have no other option because nothing will grow in their environment, so it’s hunt or starve.

LOL what a joke, my ancestors lived on a diet of almost all bison

I highly doubt this. Meat in prehistoric societies was pretty hard to come by. When you exist on the same plane as the animals, you’re subject to all the stuff they plan to do to make sure they’re not going to get eaten. It’s a hell of a lot easier and safer just to grow some plants or do some fishing or something.

I won’t say it never happened that someone’s ancestor’s society was just killing it and eating bison burgers all the time but the diet where you can eat large animal meat is almost entirely a modern invention caused by our overflow of wealth and productivity.

Eating a lot of meat is not good for you, science has proven this time and time again.

Eating a lot of meat in the modern day will straight-up kill you in the long run (literally), because the meat is full of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, disease from the conditions they were kept in, and God knows what else. Societies in the ancient world that sorted out how to eat meat consistently (one prime example being domesticating cattle successfully) started exploding across the landscape and overtaking all their neighbors, it’s a pretty good formula as long as the meat is healthy for you.