They said “yes” though.

You seem really nice. S/ No wonder no one responds to your begging for sex on the internet.

Chart: Excel

Source: House.gov

Wikipedia

What happens to John 3:16 data without football end zones? Can you rerun the numbers excluding that?

There are people today who have only known the game since they started saying RBI. I’m old and I’m not changing. 75% of my life we used an S. LOL.

I won’t say data are. I know it’s grammatically correct but I’m not doing it. I’m also not going to say datum.

I’m also not changing plural RBIs to RBI in baseball.

I’m not a PETA supporter and their statement is not true unless your being a pedant for the sake of arguing in vary bad faith. The spirit of the post, and we all know this, is by reducing your meat consumption by a day a week “for the rest of to it life” less animals will be killed.

Mr arguing for arguments sake is only arguing for a point in time, which isn’t “the rest of your life” and isn’t the spirit of the post. Reducing the demand for meat, reduces the production and harvesting of meat. It doesn’t kill the same mount of animals. Why is this such a hard concept for you all to understand?

Im not a vegan, and I’m not interested in changing your eating habits. I just call out bullshit when I see it. If you’re believing that decreased demand doesn’t decrease supply you’re also willfully dumb. You’re both proof that people will believe whatever the fk they want regardless of what they were taught. Just eat meat, without being liars.

If you have a high tolerance for utter ignorance good for you. You’re a better person than me.

You said this

> Either way, that's 1 less cow that's alive.

In response to this

> Less animals will be bred to meet demand. So they’re not killed.. they’ll just for the most part never live.

That’s beyond stupid. I’m sorry, but I feel like you’re being dumb on purpose. You’re arguing in bad faith and I’m not wasting any more time.

So now a 1 cow not being bred for suffering and being killed is the same as 1 cow being bred for suffering and being killed. Good lord, how do you get through life with such a lack of common sense.

That’s obtuse as hell. The current supply yes, but you and I both know that future supply would decrease. I don’t understand why you feel the need to push against commonly known supply and demand theory. The mental gymnastics you people are going through. Just fcking eat meat if you like it, but don’t try to fool other people.

Whatever your opinion is on that I don’t care. My point is, your comment about eating less meat not changing the supply and animals getting killed anyway, couldn’t be more wrong. If you want to eat meat because it’s tasty, go ahead, but don’t make up easily debunked tales.

Say you don’t know how supply and demand works without saying you don’t know how supply and demand works

This is a stupid comment. Over the long term if a significant amount of people didn’t eat meat 1 day a week, demand goes down and supply goes down - animal production would decrease therefore less animals will be bred for food and less animals will be killed for food.

Right, that’s the equities line. It’s about -20%

Maybe me and your bro can start our own support group.

And they peaked at the wrong time, when Jordan was in his prime, so there was no way we were going to get past the Bulls. The one year he retired for baseball we made the Championship and lost to the Rockets. It’s been a sad 50 year ride as a fan.

My Knicks suck. I was still two months from birth when they last won in 1973.

Doesn’t matter. You’re a fine person outside of this aggravating conversation. Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays.

>The chart is broken in multiple ways.

Yes that’s an unfair attack of the chart particular because it literally addresses the very concern you were critical of in the first place. Perhaps, it would be warranted if it didn’t, but it did.

The chart literally covers your concerns on the bottom. On the top it covers those who prefer volume. I made it for both groups. However, although I’m a per-game guy, the NFL recognizes volume records regardless of games played. This is tailored more for the official record because that is what matters, that’s what gets people in the Hall of Fame and remembered historically. There’s nothing in your argument I didn’t account for here.

You just got caught being inconsistent in your logic so you attack the chart. Just accept the L and move on, because you’re not bringing anything to light I didn’t account for. And your comment on Johnson was il-informed as he wouldn’t meet your criteria either.

Then let’s not talk about Calvin Johnson, when Charlie Hennigan averaged 125.

Sweetness needed a ring. I’m so glad he got one. Although the Fridge getting that goal line carry over Payton was weird.

Chart(s) - Excel Source - pro football reference