|
Reader question: Please explain this passage, particularly "no contest": When it comes to affordable protein sources, beans win easily. It’s really no contest. My comments: No competition, in other words. Beans not only are rich in protein, they're also amongst the cheapest on the market. All other protein sources, such as meats, fruits, grains, nuts and seeds are either not as rich in protein or are more expensive to buy. Combining these two factors, therefore, beans easily are the winner. It's no competition. Other protein sources cannot compete. They won't ever win the battle against beans, if we liken the competition to a fight in the battlefield. Beans are the overwhelming favorite, the superior competitor, by far. Not even close, as they say. Therefore, such a competition is considered as "no contest". In other words, there's no dispute. In the court of law, if someone pleads "no contest", it's practically the same. First of all, "no contest" is different from "guilty". In the latter case, the accused agrees with the prosecutor in its entirely. To plead "no contest", on the other hand, what the accused is really saying is that while he insists he's not guilty, he understands there's no chance of him and his lawyer winning the argument, so compelling and convincing is the evidence presented by the prosecutor. By pleading "no contest", the accused somehow hopes the judge will give him a more favorable, i.e. more lenient sentence. "No contest", after all, saves the judge and everyone time and trouble. | 
