MartianSands

You were asking for definitions, and I responded by pointing out that they definitely exist. The fact that you or I don't personally come from a background which values those definitions doesn't mean they don't exist, or that other people don't use them.

I didn't actually downvote, but I do object to your characterisation of this as misleading. People aren't labelling their products with the intent that the people buying it believe they're eating meat.

Those labels are designed to communicate what sort of thing you can do with it. If you label something "burger", for example, everyone will understand at a glance what they're looking at, and that you might like to put it between two buns with some lettuce. It will also catch the attention of people who are looking to make burgers, but might not have considered non-meat options.

Also, common usage of words like "burger" aren't limited to anything specific. People talk about "chicken burger" or "turkey burger" all the time, for example, and nobody accuses them of trying to trick people into eating chicken. Why not a "lentil burger" as well?

Various holy books, I believe. See also pescetarianism, which stems from the same place

I'm pretty sure they're referring to the incompetence, not the unfair trial

It sounds like the actual sales pitch is that it'll teach you to draw, which is a very different proposition than just being a replacement for paper and pencils.

Still a scam, obviously, but pitching itself as something which would be legitimately interesting to some people

Throwing paint into a jet engine really is damage. You gave to take the engine apart and meticulously clean out the paint before you can run it again, because otherwise the engine could do itself serious harm next time it's started. That's a very expensive thing to do.

That actually makes it a very effective act of protest, which is why the government has come down so hard on them

I thought you were implying that the survey was so unreliable that we couldn't reach any conclusions about support for Israel, or the lack thereof. I was trying to point out that we could (tenuously) reach at least one conclusion.

While you're not wrong, I think framing it as "israel-hamas" rather than "israel-palestine" is the least favourable framing available (for a supporter of Palestine) without resorting to really obvious leading questions.

As such, seeing a majority opinion against Israel is encouraging. I'd expect a more nuanced survey to swing more heavily against Israel

Oh, absolutely. It's not something which should be encouraged, and against a well designed modern system it probably isn't possible (there must be some challenge-response type NFC systems on the market).

I'm just saying it isn't unambiguously "illegitimate"

That's probably debatable, if they have permission. They probably shouldn't have been given permission, but that's a separate issue

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.

The federal reserve disagrees with you. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

When you want to buy something, that isn't a debt. It's only a debt if you already own the thing and haven't paid for it yet, so the law about accepting dollars in payment for debt doesn't apply.

Perhaps, but they do still need to know who's going to be absent even if they're going to approve it either way