Yeah, let’s throw this poor person a bone already so that they do not have to dig their buried one up.

Even if someone worked very diligently to save money, it would take a whole lot to save enough to be able to afford an entire second house.

The word “imperialism” does not mean what you think that it means.

Fair enough; I appreciate the in-depth take!

I see no problem at all with lab-grown meat being the solution, but I would push back a bit on the notion that eating bugs is inherently unpalatable. The truth is that what makes eating bugs unpalatable is our current habits and inclinations think of this as being inherently “icky”, save for certain species that come from the sea. Changing these habits would not only switch us to consuming animal protein with fewer ethical and environmental issues, but also would open us up to new culinary experiences which we are currently depriving ourselves.

Having said that, I have never tried hard to overcome my own habits and inclinations, even though I probably should, so I am not going to judge anyone else for not having done so; the above paragraph is a musing rather than me trying to dictate anything to other people.

I could not agree more that anyone who points out the negative ethical and environmental repercussions of eating meat and suggests that it would be better if we all switched to eating more bugs and/or lab-grown meat instead is really just trying to oppress the poor!

(Just to be clear: I myself find it extremely hard to change my habits so I do not negatively judge anyone else for continuing to eat meat, but I do negatively judge people who derail the entire conversation about the best way to proceed given the reality of problems with eating as much meat as we do by accusing me of having bad intentions.)

No, because the people who really think that this is what is going on are also people who are stubborn about changing anything about their lifestyle, so they will continue to eat meat.

I am sympathetic with the sentiment so I am hardly going to discourage anyone from doing this, but it is not clear who could still be convinced at this point.

“We are picking the most important fights and lying down on the train tracks on those fights.” - also Schumer, immediately after saying that.

One does not have to trust the CDC; there are plenty of other sources one can get information from. To conclude that vaccines cause autism, one actually has to be extremely selective about ones sources. Put another way: the problem is not that people are not trustful enough, but that they are too trustful.

You seem to be very critical of my supposed mocking, but I have not mocked anyone for not trusting the CDC, so perhaps a little less projection is in order.

…therefore vaccines cause autism?