I've been slowly working on a very long, super-researched article on "Should You Eat Meat."

But one topic that keeps coming up is the issue with the broad term "meat," and how easy it is to create a strawman to support either side.

For example, "eating meat" could mean getting a Big Mac, or it could mean eating regeneratively farmed organic bison.

Those could not be further apart, but which end of "eating meat" you're talking about is really important.

No one should be eating big macs. And if the only meat you can afford is ultra low quality factory farmed mystery meat, then you might want to stick to salad, olive oil, and lentils.

But that doesn't mean ALL meat is bad.

You can get extremely healthy, nutrient rich meat farmed in a carbon negative way that supports the environment. But that's not the kind of meat eating that lends itself to anti-meat documentaries, so it gets overlooked.

This is the same kind of polarization that makes many political arguments non-starters.

A single mother owning a gun to defend her child is very different from a mentally unstable 20-something guy buying a semi-automatic rifle at a gun show. But both are "gun control."

So the biggest challenge with many of these topics is finding a middle point that makes sense.

You have to draw a semi-arbitrary line at some point. Otherwise you're always stuck in limbo or you're locked into one pole with a religious fervor.

A good argument in any of these spaces is about where that line should be, not which pole is the right one.

If only that got clicks...