rabidfox

Cuba has a horrible healthcare system if you go outside the tourist areas the place is full of slums with bulidngs falling down. They even faked child mortality by recatagorising what a child is . you can't trust anything from an authoritarian state
https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article/33/6/755/5035051
People don't miss the soviet union the miss the stability of it.
people didn't recognise their own slavery its akin to prisoners being institutionalised.

if you want to lose weight you're going to need to either cut fat or cut carbs.
*Cutting fat for a long period is not sustainable as it leads to nutritionally deficiencies.

• Cutting carbs is a lot easier for some people but you need to know the science behind it and how to do it properly.
• A lot of people will neglect protein although ketones are protein sparing this will negatively impact you in the long run
• There are electrolyte imbalances that occur early on this causes most of the side effects people face.
• Any diet should focus on nutritionally density but there are still processed foods that are considered low carb and void of nutritional value
• The type of fat is the most important you should avoid omega 6 and processed seed oils.
• Low carb diets tend to eat a lot of fibre rich foods this can cause issues for some people in regards to gut mobility.
• There is heavy reliance on greens which cause lead to oxalate accumulation overtime similar with a vegan diet.
• Although this take is controversial and talking from experience. I believe this to be optimal for hypothyroid patients due to their poorer ability to process carbohydrates and while these diets can reduce active thyroid hormone T3 it does not lower metabolic rate and returns after eating carbohydrate. The only danger is a lot of low carb foods are goitrogenic .
• Ketogenic style diets have been shown to retard adaptive thermogenesis meaning you can lose weight while maintaining a higher metabolism.

Since a concern with your own interests is a character trait that, when put action, enables you to achieve and protect your own well-being and it would imply selfishness is a virtue. Egoism (an ethics of rational selfishness) is not inherently immoral. You could argue the true altruism is rare/ non-existent people do things to be liked and feel good about themselves rarely do they do things simply because it is the right thing to do.
Similarly Altruism is not inherently moral, Hitler was an altruist and demanded it of his country men. Everyone was a cog of the state and was expected to put the well being of country before everything else.
An Egoist would do the right thing despite what society tells them, not necessary because it benefits them or society but because they have set principles and reject sacrificing them for the sake of others. Principles that benefit you (productivity, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, pride) benefit the society as whole.

People forget the benefits of a democratic society.
beating people with sticks and killing people who create technology and dying from preventable diseases doesnt sound like a just society but a hippy pipe dream that would only work on a smaller scale till theres work to be done that no one wants to do. In which case it falls flat. A lot of these people complain about current society being work or starve but returning to hunter gather or societys is literally work all day not to starve and you still might.

Emperors new groove is best

people don't realise that its expensive because the government tried to make it cheaper in the first place

I think they are more center authoritarian but lean left-wing slightly
"we are socialists" Adolf Hitler
Right-wing is often confused with being authoritarian and that's where the confusion comes from. This stems from the sheer number of authoritarian right-wing leaders such as extreme religious figures and certain terrorist organisations leaning right wing. Below is my reasoning:

• While the term privitisation was coined by the nazis, they did not really privitise anything The business was put into the hands of friends of the party and the market was heavily controlled by 13 administrative groups. The forming of cartels was encouraged to form cartels and destabilise prices. Businesses were told what to make and how much so it was only private in name and essentially still under complete state control.

• Hitlers refusal to industrialise Russia demonstrates a rejection of capital export which is a crucial stage in monopolistic capitalism.

• National Socialism like communism is an attack on the individual, its a form of ultra-statism where the state and country is held above the individual. Individualism is a fundamental of all right-wing ideology. Where marxists reject individual for a class-collective, nazis reject indivduality for a race-collective.
  You can see this in how they treated Jewish people, they believe the world is ran by the "Jewish banking cartel". Even if this was true why would you blame all jewish people for the crimes of a few.

• Hitler believed he was doing good he once said "Jewish capitalism has caused the crisis of capitalism". He associated the jews with the free market and blamed it for Germany's economy after all Germany is so great its economy wouldn't just collapse.

• point 14 from the national socialist 25 points states " we demand profits from wholesale trade be shared out".

• The Reichstag Fire Decree essentially got rid of private property "Restrictions on private property is also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise proscribed" Following this they also removed Article 153 from the Weimar constitution. This allowed the property of Jews to be seized by the state.

• The nazis believed that property is "conditional" if they deemed it not being used properly or to its fullest, it could be nationalised. The best way to demonstrate this in action is with the junkers airplane factory. Junkers refused to follow the nazis bidding so his factory was seized by the state.

• They centralised most of the economy into 6 corporations

• Trade unions were nationalised into the German Labour Front

• Hitler coined the term Primacy of politics, he believed that politics and ideology should be at forefront of the country and economics should come second

• As hinted at earlier there were price, rent, and wage controls and the government intervened on many private transactions, for example, a peasant was arrested for selling his pig for more than the official price. Agents would approach businesses and offer them more than the national price in order to catch them out showing that the nazis were against profits. Commissars would also keep an eye on businesses books.

• After conquoring living space Hitler planned to make a new type of farm called Ebhof farms. These were family-based and racial pure farms which were essentially nationalised as all these farms would have a collective debt to manage and were protected from repercussions E.G it could not be sold or repossessed.

I agree Mussolini created fascism and coined the term totalitarianism. Italy was very racially mixed so Nazi-style fascism would only destroy the entire country

Unionists weren't eliminated the unions were nationalised the nazis got rid of anyone that questioned them or were a threat to their power
I agree with you on the freedom aspect while the media portrays right-wing as being ultra-freedom it isnt a left or right-wing trait there is economic freedom and social freedom nazis had neither which is why its quite hard to box them into left or right.

freedom of people isnt right wing id say that libertarian so on a political compass that would be south whereas fascism would be north

forgetting the big negative is that it always cost jobs somewhere else.
Trump saved 40,000 jobs with his tariffs at the cost of 215,000 in other industries at an average cost of $831 per household

Free trade creates jobs

• If you look at the top 3 countries on the economic freedom index Singapore, New Zealand and Australia. Even during covid unemployment is around 5% which is considered over employment.
• Tariffs cost jobs always.
• Tariffs and extreme regulation and nationalisation make monopolies.
• planned economies always fail without exception look at what happened to Zimbabwe for example.
• Prices are signals which can indicate when there's gaps in the market or demand.
• The freest countries are also the most innovative creating new jobs as the amount of work in the economy is not fixed that is the lump of labour fallacy.

exactly nationalisation is just a government monopoly

Natural Monopolies Do Not Exist
This implies that monopolies form naturally they do not, as long as one other business exists there is not a monopoly. Monopolies are enforced by bottlenecking. This is when a business lobby for regulations to make it harder and harder to get into the business. This would require lots of money and auditors/lawyers to get around all the loopholes. The big monopolies can afford this the small corner shop cannot.
Another problem is you need to take into account sacrity, to form a monopoly the business would need to buy out all the other businesses. The less businesses the more expensive it is to buy them. They may also just straight up not want to sell. The other business would need to then run them out by undercutting prices which would require them to sell at a loss which is unsustainable.
if monopolies do exist it's on utilities or it's very localised E.G the small village with 20 houses and a single Cornershop.

Who pays for tariffs?
YOU DO!

• Trump tariffs on steel in 2018 caused an 8% rise this equates $5.6 billion increase.
• before Trump, the 2002 steel tariffs cost 200000 US jobs as people just couldn't afford the monopolistic pricing.
• trumps not the only one at fault Obamas tyre tariffs saved 1200 jobs at the cost of $90000 per job. The knock-on effect cost 4000 jobs in various other industries.
• The washing machine tariffs raised the price by $86 on average due to lack of competition it protected some jobs about 1800 at the cost of $1,5 dollars a year.
• Douglas Irving found that productivity decreases in industries with tariffs

id argue thats a disorder of sex development. They tend to be more one way or the other E.G having non-functioning testes which is usually discovered through puberty. theres also specific genetic mutations we can link to being intersex such as a mutation of the FGFR2 gene. Theres also links to pesticides from several studies but i don't believe its the primary cause.

its a symptom

anorexia is an eating disorder. disorders, diseases, syndromes and illnesses have strict definitions

Not privatised enough
Nationalisation is a popular opinion and it is controversial to go against the grain.
The reason trains suck (they are better than they were under the government) is because they are not privatised enough:

• Around 40% of rail fares including season tickets, anytime and off-peak tickets are regulated and so the government is in control of how much they cost.
• The only privatised part of the railways is the day-to-day operation of the trains and even this is on a short-term franchise agreement with the government.
• The government is also responsible for all capital spending on the railway, as well as the maintenance of the track, as well as all signaling related to the day-to-day operation of trains is operated by Network Rail.
  Lack of competition leads to high prices and lack of innovation,.
• The infrastructure hasn't been updated in over 160 years massive investment is required to bring this up to scratch.
• Train operator's profit is in the region of 3% on average and is reinvested in training, facilities, and railway infrastructure, with only part of the 3% going to shareholders in dividends.
• If you ignore the state’s contribution to infrastructure costs, a number are profitable and some considerably so – these include South West Trains, Greater Anglia, and Thameslink. Operators have benefited from both the passenger increases and reduced charges for track access.

At the end of the day if we look to America you can see examples of both privately built railroad infrastructure and government building. The union pacific had 10s of millions of dollars and it failed they were extremely inefficient due to lack of a profit motive. You also had the great northern which was completely private, extremely efficient, and cost-effective. It went down in history as one of the best railways in the world at the time.

"This system will provide a more accountable way to hold train operators to account" The government cares very little for quality or cost bureaucracy reduces accountability greatly they can't even fix the roads properly. Without a profit motive which is already only 3% for the railroads theres no reason to improve services

i don't see how they have managed to waste that much money on it, it would be good to have HS2 but its not worth the cost IMO

you said it stops consumers from being exploited yet its creating a monopoly via the government

those are both really bad observational studies you cannot prove causality from observational studies you can only form a hypothesis. There are RCTs that have tried to prove this and they fell flat. They are confounded by healthy user bias people that eat processed meat are more likely to exhibit unhealthy behaviours, smoking, drinking, drugs, lack of exercise, high-calorie consumption and sugar. There's no evidence to suggest meat causes insulin resistance because it has a low impact on insulin which is why its recommended to diabetics.

There is little to no evidence processed meat products are bad
Take for example a burger you do not simply eat a burger on it own. You have a bun high in processed seed oils, you have sauce full of sugar, you will probably buy a sugary drink to wash it down and follow that up with ice cream. The whole idea is confounded by healthy user bias. A good study that shows this is while observational studies generally show vegetarians and vegans with better health outcomes, the UK Health food Shopper study (0) looked at omnivores and vegetarians that shopped in health food stores. This showed almost no difference in outcomes. Secondly, people are adults, not babies they should be able to make their own informed decisions about their diet without meddling from the government which only really pays attention to lobbyists.
The idea that processed meat is bad stems from the idea that meat is bad which isn't true:

• The study Behavioral Characteristics and Self-reported Health Status Among 2029 Adults Consuming a “Carnivore Diet (1) is an example, of the same type of bad observational study but it shows the opposite as its a diet with no restrictions on meat the only real problem reported was poor exercise performance almost all other metrics improved on this diet.
• Another observational study Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study(2) from the lancelet says that high carbohydrates increase mortality and saturated fat reduced stroke risk.
  *Processed Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of the Constraints of Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies (3) This is a meta-analysis of studies about process meat and cancer they identified wide variance in results and based on the overall quality of the studies there's a low amount of actual evidence to support the hypothesis.
• one of the reasons which is highly debated is that saturated fat is bad, mechanistically this doesn't add up since stearic acid and palmitic acid are good for you and mostly found in animal food. The study Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review(4) was published in the journal of American Cardiology as recently as 2020. Did a complete review of the science around saturated fat and concluded that they should emphasize that the "health effects of dietary carbohydrate—just like those of saturated fat—depend on the amount, type and quality of carbohydrate, food sources, degree of processing". Bacon that is just meat and salt is not the same as one pumped with additives and artifical preservatives.
• one of the healthiest populations of the world was Polynesians (5) the study Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: A natural experiment: The Pukapuka and Tokelau Island looked at the heart disease risk amongst these tribes. Their diet was mostly coconut fat and fish they had almost no heart disease or cardiovascular events. This showed that even plant saturated fats high myristic and lauric acid were good for us. There's a follow-up study where they had changed to a western diet high in carbohydrates and seed oils and their health worsened.
• A study on rats called Effect of meat (beef, chicken, and bacon) on rat colon carcinogenesis(6) found that bacon reduced the chance of colorectal cancer due to NaCL
• In regards to junk food advertisement, the study The Effects of Banning Advertising in Junk Food Markets(7) found it didn't work as people would still eat the same things, firms would lower prices or people would opt for different junk food. I will admit this area of research is fairly limited and is mostly aimed at tobacco products.
  Overall i would say we shouldn't be vilifying these foods but more education and research into the additives that are in them carrageenan and metabisulfite, for example, are known carcinogens but salt and liquid smoke are not. I don't believe banning hyper-palatable processed foods will do much. I think meat is the wrong target as its the one part of these foods with nutritional value.

(0)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12001975/
(1)https://academic.oup.com/cdn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cdn/nzab133/6415894
(2)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext
(3)https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3601/htm
(4)https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077
(5)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15927580_Cholesterol_coconuts_and_diet_on_Polynesian_atolls_A_natural_experiment_The_Pukapuka_and_Tokelau_Island_studies
(6)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10050267/
(7)https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/85/1/396/3108825

i agree with most of what you said other than that processed meat is the problem

I disagree there is a dictionary definition and a legal one the legal definition comes from Terrorism Act 2000(in the uk) which defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The specific actions included are:

*serious violence against a person;
*serious damage to property;
*endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
*creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
*action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
So i freedom fighter that is trying to defeat a totalitarian, fascist police state is covered by this. Also eco-fascists and anarchists if they put belief into practice

Just because it might benefit you doesn't stop it from being theft. If someone breaks into your house and steals your tv but decides to do the dishes they still stole your tv.

Just because you like the benefits doesn't stop it from being theft
Its more accurate to say taxes are extortion you cannot opt-out of paying taxes you pay them or get fined or sentenced to prison. Taxes fund social security, roads, police, and pay politicians. This is great but taxes pay for bombs, alcoholics, criminals to get medical aid, and even expenses of politicians.
Democracy is often called the tyranny of the majority because the majority forces those who disagree to comply with things they don't like for example, building Trump's wall.

The key to something being theft is the dishonest appropriation of property, this can be through deception, coercion, or misrepresentation. There is no consent in taxes as there are negative consequences to do so. Due to centralisation of government politics are detached from the taxpayers so their values and opinions arent well-represented taxes are regularly wasted on stupid things like walking lizards, planes that don't fly and creating a smart toilet (see rand pauls waste report). The government's job is to protect your rights and "the government which governs the least governs the best"

Milton Friedman was very vocal about minimising taxation and being more efficient in his book " free to choose" he made the following graph. Referred to as Money Spent This basically shows that when you buy something for yourself you focus on COST and QUALITY the government cares very little about either of those metrics since they are using other peoples money to buy things for other people they tend to spend more on lower quality products. So while Taxation is theft, it is a necessary evil, and it's our job is to try to keep the government in check about proper representation via voting, protest and appeal

Even if we are talking about a CEO here one bad financial decision could ruin the company. Anyone can invest in a company its not all these greedy fat cats, they also make calculated risks and don't just throw it down the drain.

Less centralisation the better
I think every country could benefit from breaking up into independent nations it encourages better community, trade is more independent and encouraged, the politics is less centralised and the politicians have a better idea of what is going on in the local communities.

I agree personally low carb is good for me, Mediterranean is pretty healthy, the Japanese tend to also be pretty healthy

The media focused on the bad but he actually did a lot of good
On the plus side:

• He was a strong leader that took a good strong stance against Korea and other foreign intimidation
• His tax cuts worked to increase overall revenue as they should, you need an equilibrium to make it more expensive to avoid taxes, which is why Reagan was praised for this.
• He made medical insurance cheaper and more competitive by allowing cross-state insurance.
• Reduced bureaucracy by implementing a 1 in 2 out policy in regards to new legislation
• he tried to keep to his campaign promises as much as possible.
• he said what he actually thought
• Made animal abuse a federal offense
• Made CBD and Hemp oil legal
• Finally fixed flints water problem
• Save our seas act and designated 375,000 acres as protected conservation land.
• Allowed drug prescripts from Canada to reduce costs
• Forced hospitals to disclose costs so consumers can compare
• Trump administration will provide H.I.V. prevention drugs for free to 200,000 uninsured patients per year for 11 years
• Withdrew from the TPP saving jobs
• Had thousands of hostages released
• Made new trade deals for example with Korea
• took steps to withdraw soldiers from Afghanistan

He did a lot of bad also:

• Was very loud and vocal on social media often said or posted things without research.
• He often flip-flopped on opinions and would contradict his previous statements
• Huge waste of money building the wall but it was in his campaign fledge
• Huge trade war with China and the EU which damaged public relations
• Made the same mistake as Obama by making tariffs for imported goods all this does is cost really saves a few jobs at the cost of many more
• Ideologically driven travel ban
• Thinks climate change is a hoax
• Militarised the police
• Complained about Obama playing gold all the time but ended up playing golf over twice as much
• Withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
• Was unsupportive to whistleblowers
• Trump signed into law a six-year extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing the NSA to conduct searches of foreigners' communications without any warrant. The process incidentally collects information from Americans

Like all leaders, there are pros and cons of his presidential run. The media tended to focus on the cons during his presidency, this is partially his own doing by being so loud and vocal. His blatant protectionism has probably harmed the economy he will certainly be remembered very easily if nothing his presidency was interesting and the constant attacks from the opposition didn't help neither did the regular impeachments every time they didn't get their way.
I feel if he listened to the right people his presidency would have been better like Rand Paul. I honestly believe he was better than Hillary I wish people would give some 3rd parties a chance.

frying is not inherently unhealthy it depends on what you cook it in if you use an unstable oil like sunflower or soybean then its unhealthy even worse if they are repeatedly heated which is unfortunately how its extracted.

In regards to publically owned land, how would you respond to the tragedy of the commons?

This sounds more like you are against the idea nobody should own lands is your argument that collectives should have limits on the land they can buy vs the individuals?

I kind of agree i think around puberty it should be different people are having intercourse around 15-16 and while most porn is unrealistic it can be educational its the porn industry that needs to change. There should be warnings on each site before it shows you sexual content for example. It would also benefit from more realistic sex they tend to promote models and idealistic body types vs real people.

i was thinking more if we look at extremes if everyone was gay we'd die out, currently we have a declining birth rates and aging populations which us not ideal

we really need to update the DSM it was still volume five when i studied psychology around 7 years ago

i think we should continue promoting sugar free drinks, I do not believe in restricting the liberty of people to choose what they eat and drink in relation to sugar

Its not a black and white scenario

• fasting is good for you and its a myth that you need to eat breakfast
• In school children there seems to be a small benefit to breakfast in regards to concentration children are growing and need more food.
• The most important thing is that when you break a fast you get enough protein to encourage protein synthesis/growth and repair.
• you can have an unhealthy breakfast like cereal which in excess can contribute to obesity.
• you gain more weight at night due to certain mechanisms and it can disrupt sleep so eating a heavy breakfast and small/no dinner is also benifical

agree with your general point of view although bacon is fine the problem with sausages is all the fillers

i would say racism in the west if you go to india the natives are responsible for 90% of the racism

i think that's down to most white people living in the west if your the majority racism is less likely to happen

thats pretty crazy japan is pretty hostile to immigrants but they like tourists. Zimbabwe seized the farms from white people because of colonialism but then gave them to people that werent farmers. I think as whole people arent racist most would like to move to a foreign country to retire for example.

The tip should be included in the price, it should be earned the alternative would be to just not go to the restaurant at all if you don't like tipping then the business loses out on revenue. If you keep tipping the poor employees on slave labour the employers will never decide to pay them a decent wage.

As far as weight loss is concerned they both work!
I think periodic fasting (not fasting every day) is much better than simply calorie counting which can be mentally and physically draining.
I personally utilised fasting due to having poor hunger signals and specific health problems that make weight loss harder. Its worth noting that there are different types of fast like OMAD, 8:2, 2MAD, alternate day fasting, extended fasting, protein-sparing modified fasting which has different uses and works for different people even deciding not to eat after 6 pm is afast.

• Fasting allows you to eat the same foods and stay more satiated longer by reducing hunger hormones and increasing satiety hormones.
• Fasting preserves muscle in calorie deficit due to ketones being muscle sparing.
• Fasting can help you save money and focus on food quality as you have more spare time due to less meal preparation.
• Fasting is sustainable if you treat it as an eating protocol and not a diet.
• Fasting lets you intuitively control calories unintentionally so you spend less time thinking about what to eat.
• Fasting slows down thermogenic adaptation so your metabolism does not drop as much as you lose weight (see the matador study).
• fasting controls blood sugar and systemic insulin sensitivity.

That being said you can lose weight and increase insulin sensitivity via caloric restriction or simply swapping carbohydrates for protein and fiber can even be an effective method.

Android the universal phone anyone can use
As someone that works in the tech industry in relation to mobiles, I can give a good evaluation of which phone's better. I wouldn't say android is a type of phone for a start it is an operating system like Windows (Windows phones exist, remember the Lumia?) so iOS vs Android would be more accurate or Samsung vs iPhone i will talk as if they are both just brands for the sake of argument.

Firstly there are some major flaws with iPhones

iPhones have limited memory
you cannot update the memory on your iPhone without buying a new phone.

iPhones have unique hardware
Now, this may sound like a pro but no it is not we need universality in technology it makes things way simpler to repair.

Repairing iPhones is difficult
iPhones are very hard to troubleshoot, screen repairs can break the phone, button repairs on certain models can break the phone, there are certain things that break commonly like the tri-star chip failures.

** Not as secure as you think**
There are several exploits with all models of iPhones, they are often wrongly held up as secure and privacy driven but for example, checkra1n allows you to bypass the security while they release new software to circumvent this its innate in every model and there's always a workaround.

Expensive!!
The major drawback is that they are not accessible due to the high price, the designs have not changed in several years but the price has skyrocketed you can get a used car cheaper. The app store is expensive too and since its closed source developers are limited in what they can do.

Why are androids better?

A very diverse range
I won't deny there are many bad android phones some worse than iPhones.
however, their marketplace is diverse there are many good phones at an economical price. There are privacy-dedicated phones, there are gaming dedicated phones, there are phones that have extremely good quality cameras, there are "indestructible" phones for people that are accident prone or have a dangerous job.

cheap
I'm not saying all androids are cheap of course the newest model of anything is expensive. It is way more economical than iPhones. iPhones marginally improve with each model but the price is not worth the cost of an upgrade. The app store is cheap and since its open-source, you can replace core services like browsers or even design your own phone entirely.

Dependable
Again depends on the model a cheap Chinese phone from a wish not so much.
Overall Androids are dependable they have longer battery lives, they have fewer software issues overall from my experience, and are a lot simpler to repair.

** Customisable**
Want to increase the memory to 1TB? no problem.Want to run ubuntu on your phone? Sure go ahead. Want to add a new screen that's brighter than the old one? You can do that.

Internet speed
androids are much more efficient with the internet and a lot faster, where iPhones are slower and seem to have problems with calculating the bandwidth and overestimates how much it needs, as a result, this can cause internet problems when there's many users on the same connection
What about flaws?
The one major flaw with androids is like windows since they are more popular they are more prone to malware attacks and hacking.
The only way you will be infected is by:

1. downloading an obscure app
2. visiting unsafe sites
3. not having an antivirus on your phone.

overall I would pick android i prefer the apps it offers, i prefer a wide range of phones to suit any need, it's easy to repair/customise and it is value for money.
There's however, a few reasons people should choose an iPhone for example, you already have lots of apple products E.G a smartwatch, you want status, a simpler interface to prevent information overload.

Racist roots with a pessimistic view of the future

Thomas Malthus originally came up with the population problems and he came up with it to argue against minorities and immigrants. There are several problems with it but it all stems from one fundamental flaw. Food is also a population so food increases geometrically as well as numerically. It also doesn't take into account new technology and increased efficiency. The other major thing is declining birth rates populations do not grow infinitely we know this from animals. There does appear to be a direct correlation between poverty and populations, poorer families have more children as they are then more likely to survive and do well for themselves. Whereas richer families will invest their time in 1 or 2 children generally speaking. Technology will catch up like it always does by malthus's predictions we'd already be in soylent green territory but this is not the case, humanity will struggle on.

A bit silly if you think about it

no this doesn't make sense it sounds nice to say it but just because you don't have a word for something doesn't mean you don't perceive it or the overall perception changes. For example, if you don't have a word for pain so you refer to it as very angry. you still experience pain despite not having a word for it. in the past cultures have not had a word for blue and have referred to it as something like greenish-yellow they still know what blue is. to quote Stephen Pinker "there is scant evidence to show that any specific rules of grammar are prewired in the brain and there is no need to invoke genes in order to account for grammatical structures, because these can be explained more simply and more plausibly as the product of cultural evolution and as a response to the exigencies of efficient communication."

A frustrated minority

While there have been instances of violence from this community, not all incels are violent misogynists that go out and kill people. They are mostly introverts with bad social skills and as a result, some of them are looking for something or someone to blame. Like others have said this is a symptom of other problems that need to be addressed.

I think people are confusing this with one gender is smarter than the other.
this is not the case, there are different types of intelligence and men and women are better at different types of tasks for example women have better verbal fluency and men have better spatial perception.
If we want to genralise women have a lot more smart people on average but men have a lot more really smart people but are dragged down by the amount of very dumb people this doesn't really tell us much useful information.

this doesn't make sense black people are made fun of for their hair so now they own that hair and no one else can use it? It belongs to lots of cultures germanic, nordic and celts all did it for personal hygiene. The British invented sewers so i guess everyone else should go back to throwing it out the window. Every culture takes things from other cultures.

NOT AS BLACK AND WHITE AS YOU MAY THINK.

All evidence of a vegan-based diet being good for you is based on faulty observational science confounded by healthy user bias. A good example showing how you can skew an observational study is while many observational studies show that eating a plant based diet is healthy, they are comparing again the general population which, as a whole is not healthy. The UK shopper study(1) showed that omnivores and vegetarians, who shopped in health food stores, had the same health outcomes. There are now randomly controlled trials showing negative effects of meat with statstical significance and the american college of cardiology recently changed their mind on its impacts after reviewing the evidence (1)

There is other health issues associated with being vegan(particularly pregnant women)(2) that others have mentioned so i won't go into it any further that being said it is possible to survive on a vegan diet.

Theres a lot of nutrients not available or bioavailable in plants such as heme-iron, carnosine, creatinine, zinc omega 3 (4). Even vitamin A poses problems because plants only have beta-carotene which needs to be converted(5). most the population has poor conversion and more beta-carotene you consume the less you is converted(6).

Theres a lot of arguments about the environment which have some truth factory farming is bad. Factory farming of plants is equally bad. Non-factory farmed animals can have a net 0 carbon emission due to the carbon cycle(7,8) and regenerative agricultural practices such as rotational grazing which replenish the nutrients in the soil and sequesters carbon. you can even reduce this further by adding certain things into ruminants' diets such as red seaweed (9( or removing inflammatory components like corn and seeds(10) The water argument is moot because we consume the water when we eat the cow it doesnt just disappear, most of it is green water irrigation is only used in winter and dessert environments so only makes up 2% of total water in the US that is(11,12). All the net-carbon from factory farming comes from the finishing process, pesticides and food waste (mostly plants) also have a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions also but are ignored. The media likes to cherry-pick observational studies which you cant confer causality which the nutritional journals are plagued with(13) This distracts from the real issues which is the impact the health and transport sector has.

(1)https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/533S/4689993
(2) https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077
(3)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01963568
(4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534950/
(5)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854912/
(6)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855261/
(7)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338
(8)https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grassfed-beef
(9)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620308830
(10)https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/AN17433
(11)https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1_1.pdf
(12)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X18305675
(13)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3884102/

The water a ruminant uses is mostly green water( food and rainfall) some of its blue water (streams, ponds and lakes) a tiny percentage comes from grey water (irrigation). Where do you think this water goes? well they urinate and breath it out then we consume it they aren't stealing your water. This is only an issue in places like California and texas which are deserts so they largely import meat from outside the state.
Saturated fat does not raise cholesterol because cholesterol is mostly produced in the body which down-regulates with consumption as long as you are metabolically healthy. Runoff you mentioned is a different problem entirely which comes down to soil quality the three main factors effecting this are mono-cropping, overgrazing and pesticides the solution isnt to get rid of the animals that would just kill the soil altogether.

High cholesterol is only an issue with people with metabolic dysfunction and you would measure this with a fractional cholesterol panel, CAC score, or the cheapest estimator is you take your triglyceride to HDL level which can predict LDL damage. When LDL damage from things like omega 6 and smoking it changes from big and fluffy to small and dense. if you have other health problems for example poor circulation and high blood pressure the endothelial cell lining becomes damaged. If your body cant repair it for example a k2 deficiency you will develop plaque as a defensive mechanism and thats what causes a heart attack.

PETA is not a good source for getting data the majority of forestry cut down is to produce seed oils for example soybean oil. some argue these are grown for feeding animals but thats not true as they are fed by-products like soy proteins, corn stalks and distillers grains. you need good quality land to grow these crops you dont need good quality land to raise cattle most of them are raised on land you cant grow crops

you mention other forms of protein being available there's only 2 plant proteins that are complete(to my knowledge) and that is soy and mushrooms which is really 1 option as the amount in mushrooms is tiny. The only alternative is protein supplementation which is not viable for a lot of people. The problem is companies measure nitrogen to get protein which works in meat due to the distribution of amino acids but this doesnt work with plants so you need to use something called DIASS to get the amount of protein DIAAS % = 100 x [(mg of digestible dietary indispensable amino acid in 1 g of the dietary protein) / (mg of the same dietary indispensable amino acid in 1g of the reference protein)].

I can't imagine this being great for poor people while its similar to alcohol and cigarette taxes it basically makes it a privilege to be able to do these things a lot of places don't have access to recycling or its limited so quickly becomes to much to recycle and they are forced to throw things out. I can see this increasing flytipping and burning of trash as a result in order to escape fines.

we can recycle nuclear waste in fast reactors

Everythings got non-renewable aspects we need to make solar panels and wind turbines and repair them.

we have more efficient reactors now called fast breeder reactors(they make more fuel than they consume) so if we began implementing them you would need considerably fewer reactors.

You actually bizarrely have a lower chance of cancer living near a reactor the reasons are unknown but it is thought to be due to higher standards of living.