look into static site generators

I don’t think you know anything about her or her politics, but if you want to make a snap judgement based on one photo, who am I to try to stop you?

she was an invited guest who paid her own way to celebrate one of the new media outlets that would let her get her message out. she didn’t make the seating chart.

I meant the milk, but ok. farmers agree: calves are the farmers property as much as the cows are

babies don’t make milk. other animals don’t have property. You’re just anthropomorphizing.

just saying it doesn’t make it so. it’s perfectly natural to drink milk, and plenty of people aren’t lactose intolerant.

many naturally aren’t.

feel free to read the references. you don’t have to read much past the abstract of most of poore-nemecek’s references to see that what I’m saying is true.

I don’t need sources to be skeptical. you made a claim. I’m asking you to support that claim with good science.

The sources are in the references to the papers that you’re presenting. The LCA studies themselves often come with a warning that it shouldn’t be combined with other LCA studies, but poore-nemecek actually took an even lazier approach were they compiled meta studies that were ignoring this guidance and didn’t actually source many if any LCA studies themselves. when reading the meta studies that they gathered, you can see that all of them say that LCA guidance discourages combining studies as they have done, but they’re just going to do it anyway.

it’s bad science.

this analysis suffers from the same flawed methodology present in poore_nemecek 2018: they combine LCA studies, which cannot be done because the data is gathered using disparate methodology. to make matters worse, they didn’t actually do all his work themselves; they pulled in poore-nemecek as one of their references.

this relies on poore-nemecek 2018. I don’t find this to be a good source. do you have another?

animal milk is waaay worse than oat milk.

I don’t know if this can be substantiated

absurd ideological basis (anarchy supporters)

I am not a community but can you please add me to your list

lower in calories

not everyone wants that.

they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.

some of that evidence was a paper which has since expired. if those organizations aren’t updating their positions at least as frequently as the AND is, then we cannot believe that their positions are any more valid than the expired AND paper that they relied on

the expired paper doesn’t matter. It has no relevance

it’s the exact paper linked in the initial comment to which I replied.

And the page about childhood nutrition:

I wasn’t reading carefully. I missed this. it doesn’t change whether the other paper expired, is the current position of the academy, or whether papers that relied on it should be considered reliable unless they update.

it’s written on the paper itself: it expired in december of 2021, and is no longer the position of teh academy.

You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.