Absolutely true. However one could imagine a world where Trump never ran for President in 2016, or even better was never born at all. Even imagining that some other Republican won in 2016 its hard to imagine it could have gotten as bad as the current Trump reality. But I’m not too informed about the 2016 republican candidates. Would love to get filled in on this.
It absolutely states that being gay is a grave sin and even calls for death for them in the old testament. However the message of Jesus in the new testament is one of radical forgiveness and non-judgement. Jesus is not afraid of those who commit sexual sins as seen by one of his companions being a prostitute. Jesus says to love everyone, forgive everyone and only hate the sin itself, but not the sinner. Judging a person is also considered a grave sin, something many modern christians have forgotten.
Therefore there is absolutely a theological basis for allowing homosexuals to attend church, following Jesus example of himself hanging out with prostitutes, another kind of sexual sinner. And since Jesus tells you to love everyone and judge no one there is no reason to hate or shun a gay person. This also applies to other sins. If you rob a bank you can still go to church as well, with the same argument.
However if you talk to a priest or pastor of a liberal LGBTQ affirming church and ask them if gays are allowed in the church they will shout a resounding yes. But if you press them on the question of if homosexual intercourse is a sin or not they will probably get uncomfortable and may give another answer. It’s a very hard biblical reality to deny.
However since you could in theory be gay and have a same sex partner and just simply not have sex with them you could give gay couples the benefit of the doubt. This is the basis for allowing gay marriage. However gay marriage stands on much more shakier grounds than simply allowing LGBTQs in the church, since marriage in the bible is explicitly stated as being between a man and a woman. Some prists/pastors however take a different route to justifying it and that involves reasoning that since God created all humans and some humans are gay, those people most have been created gay by god himself, and everything that God creates is good, therefore gays are good. This argument requires some reasoning outside the Bible but is used by many. Conservatives can attack such a stance saying it directly goes against direct bible quotes while also claiming one is not born gay but you turn gay by your own decision or others influence. Gayness would in this view be a free will sin rather than a god creates attribute.
I’m writing this comment as a non Christian who supports LGBTQ btw. Just trying to explain what I know about the discussion.
Since oil palms only grow in humid tropical environments it really comes down to which land we value the most. By using 3 hectares in Europe we could save 1 hectare of land in rainforests. What is worth more, 1 hectare rainforest in Indonesia or 3 hectares of native woodland in Europe? It’s not really clear cut. One could argue that 1 hectare of rainforest is more valuable because of the higher biodiversity. However there is not one natural answer to this question and ultimately subjective.
Oil palms only grow in humid tropical environments. Environments that when left undisturbed would be tropical rainforest. Decoupling palm oil from deforestation is therefore very hard. Certified sustainable palmoil is simply from farmland that the farmers have proved not to have been deforested recently but that same land still has the potential to return to tropical rainforest after restoration.
Regarding America specifically probably only Hawaii could support it. But land there is scarce and is used for much higher value crops like fruit crops. Harvesting palm oil is also quite labor intensive since the fruit bunches are harvested manually. It therefore does not make economic sense to grow it in countries with high wages.
There is not a pig breed out there that is all lard. However there is a huge difference between pig breeds regarding the procentage. Back in the day when palmoil was not available and lard was used the pigs we had were much fatter and fed a diet higher in cereal grains and lower in soy. When lard went out of fashion there was suddenly a huge oversupply of the stuff and we shifted their diets but more importantly shifted breeding efforts to ever leaner pigs.
This makes it harder to say exactly what environmental impact lard would have if we shifted back to using it as one of our main solid fats. I would argue that lard right now could be seen as a byproduct. In my country a lot of the lard is currently used as a feedstock for biodiesel which, when you think about it, is absolutely insane considering we at the same time import copious amounts of palm oil. You could even see it as us currently making biodiesel from palmoil by proxy. Which is not ideal.
But let’s say we could make the shift back to lard. We would get slightly less biodiesel but at the same time we could shift to a cereal grain heavy diet for the pigs and go back to those old breeds. Soy yields far less than say corn yields. Fatty pigs could therefore be less land demanding than lean pigs are to raise. I can’t exactly say if the demand for land would go up or down in the final equation but theoretically we could end up actually needing less land when also taking account the less land we would need for palm oil. But the main obstacle here is that people simply don’t want to eat lard anymore. It’s “icky” for the modern consumer. Which is ironic as we still consume it in sausages as one of the largest ingredients, but the consumers won’t accept it in baking products anymore.
In the end lard is just the carb in cereal grain converted to fat via a pig. And cereal grains are plentiful and very high yielding. Is using corn to produce fatter pigs, pigs that we would still raise anyway for the meat, really be worse than using the same corn for bio ethanol? It’s worth a thought. I would be very interested in seeing a full life cycle analysis of the land use and environmental impact such a shift would lead to.
I live in a place where there’s 5 months of winter with real snow. I work in agriculture and the short growing season is a huge limiter on what can be produced here and with what yield. Most people here wouldn’t mind it being a bit warmer. Say having 3 months of winter instead of the usual 5. And in my industry at this specific region the farmers are actually looking forward to climate change and have already started benefiting from it. New crops are already entering that were not possible before. And farmers can now start harvesting grains in August while only 10-20 years ago september was the norm. All science-based projections predict yield increases for all crops here.
From a purely selfish perspective I should celebrate climate change. Farming here will just get better and if farming elsewhere gets worse the price for produce produced here will also increase. But while it’s good for my career and maybe even my own enjoyment of the weather I would never say I look forward to it. The huge amount of future misery in the world that is and will be caused by climate change is not worth any improvement in this absolutely tiny piece of the planet I’m on. Still I take comfort in knowing I’ll be alright. As long as the affected regions of the world don’t invade mine…
I don’t have data to quote here but considering heart problems were rare back in the day when butter, lard and tallow was used in generous amounts in combination with obesity being rare and daily labor was common, I would assume it would be mostly fine. Heart problems in non-overweight people are rare even today, especially at younger ages.
There are also 2 new high quality studies out there showing milk fats being significantly safer for heart health compared to other saturated animal fats. I can link that study for you on request. However you wouldn’t need to use butter for your potatoes necessarily. You can oven bake potatoes in rapeseed oil or olive oil just fine and get the same calories in, if you happen to be afraid of milk fat that is. Finding a milk alternative would be harder however since the seed and nut oils out there are generally much less nutrient dense than whole milk. The exception would be soy milk but then you have to be careful not to get a version full of sugar.
When trying to gain weight (or simply not go minus as in your case) the method will be the opposite of what is needed to lose weight. I have helped someone with this in the past and what I saw as his greatest trouble was that he would get too full to eat more very quickly. I asked about his diet and it was just full of foods which are very filling without actually containing many calories. Lots of fruits and vegetables with almost no carb and no fat.
So really what you need are easily digestible and not too filling calorie rich ingredients. Think lots of grains and fat. Buttered potatoes instead of air fried potatoes. Carrots instead of lettuce. White pasta over whole grain pasta. Cream or mayo based sauce instead of a stock/water based sauce etc. However still try to eat healthy. If going for bread take the white bread without added sugar for example. And still include vegetables but don’t make them over ⅓ of your plate. I have read many success stories with adding heavy amounts of dairy to the diet which makes sense since milk is there to grow a calf as fast as possible. Drinking a package of milk a day is almost a miracle cure to being underweight if you can stomach it. In fact the medical food packs they give to malnourished children are dairy based. Consider it if your diet allows it.
However what specific meals which are convenient to bring I don’t have many ideas. But I hope this mode of thinking will help at least a bit. It has to be a big portion that you can actually stomach. Think about which foods you seem to be able to eat a huge amount of and then narrow those down to the most calorie rich. They also have to not clog your stomach for the whole rest of the day so being easy to digest is also key.
I would also argue that a great asshole has the potential to turn his asshole supporters into even greater assholes with time.
As an example I would say whoever ran the QAnon conspiracy changed a lot of people. On the QAnon casualties subreddit there were lots of people writing how their family members who beforehand were just “normal” republicans suddenly turned into absolutely bat shit insane conspiracy theorists after falling down that rabbit hole. Without that external exposure they would never have ended up in that state.
Crazy religious cults are often intentionally designed like this. Scientology for example had the whole aliens thing hidden from new initiates. You had to be part of the cult for a certain amount of time before learning about those “inner parts” probably because if you started out day 1 with the whole aliens bit people would see the bullshit for what it was but exposed gradually they accept it.
I think a lot of that also applies to the maga movement. I think we can all agree that Trump was always bad. But I also think most can agree that its only gotten worse with time. As trump gets more and more insane his supporters, who refuse to admit they were wrong about him, have to constantly double down and accept and support whatever he is doing, constantly turning his supporters views worse with time.