Falling3

Redlining, voter suppression, consistent attacks on important services (DMV, USPS, healthcare providers), drug testing for welfare recipients (despite the fact that these programs cost more than they save), anti-abortion crusades.

There is a long list of evidence for conservative attacks on the poor in the US, which is in no way limited to programs like where the criticisms you mentioned apply - although I don't believe those criticisms are made in good faith to begin with anyway.

Viruses and antibiotic resistance as well

If the issue you're referring to are the ethical problems of farming, they are in no way limited to CAFOs. Some of the worst practices I've personally witnessed have been at small farms. Size is no guarantee of treatment and locality has absolutely no bearing on ethics.

You're also underestimating the impact of modern animal breeds on the price of animal products. Broiler chickens are slaughtered at about a third of the age as chickens a century ago. All farms benefit from that kind of decrease and it's one of the things that turned chicken into a daily food. Without CAFOs, prices would certainly go up, but less dramatically than you thibk.

I won't deny that this is a systemic issue and we shouldn't place all the blame on individuals. But it's an absolutely ridiculous claim that it's our only choice.

Don't waste you're money buying local because it really means nothing with respect to welfare of the animal. Instead try to reduce your consumption.

Subsidies are certainly part of it, but the entire process is extremely efficient.

It's also cheap because there are very few protections and regulations for the animals and the fact that selective breeding has gotten their farmed lifespan down to just 6 weeks.

It has nothing to do with being "woke". It's laughably innacurate.

Humans don't require animal products to live (or thrive). And your "what got us here" comment is a Naturalistic Fallacy.

Agricultural subsidies that affect beef, either directly or indirectly, have been in place in the US for almost a century. So either your father is quite old, did not live in the US, or that meat was subsidized.

Ah yes. The birthplace of several religions that that introduced the moral worthiness of animals centuries (if not longer) before the West and the origin of all mock meats up until a few decades ago has no interest in animal well-being. Absolutely.

Who specifically is being disincentivized?

The author specifically addresses this.

Yeah, I can certainly appreciate the environmental and cost savings, but this would make me miserable. I could get myself the make the trip for ice cream, but the multiple runs back to the fridge while preparing food has me agitated just thinking about it.

What is the cause of that ~30%?

Sophomore year of HS, my math teacher introduced us to the word equidistant. For at least an entire quarter, I thought he had a speech impediment and was trying to say "equally distant".

My guess would be the menthol in peppermint.

I completely agree; it's an alarming trend that's used to sew ignorance. Blindly following experts clearly isn't an antidote to that, which is all I was trying to express originally.

>Through the process. You never have to trust the data if you have a good process. Process will verify data. Process will verify sources. Process is impartial. Trust the process, not the results.

The GP's post didn't say trust science or trust data. It said trust scientists. I'm taking issue with the desire to put faith in individuals.

We have more options than blindly trust those who are more likely to be right and "idiot free for all".

I don't disagree with you. The only thing I'm arguing against is the GP's comment that we should blindly put our trust in the groups mentioned.

Some of the best parts about science, as you've pointed out, are peer review and replication. There should never be a need to put your faith in an individual scientist and take them at their word.

>There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself.

I hope it's clear that I was in no way doing that.

Governments, scientists, and experts have also been proven to be wrong and to have lied in the past.

It's not only that it doesn't mean the dictionary definition. There's no usage - colloquial or otherwise - of that term I'm familiar that fits the situation.

It's disingenuous at best to refer to the response as "snapping".

Not only the aesthetics, but also the idea that individuals of one sex dissolve into their mates bodies. It's all kind of nightmarish.

Anglerfish have always been the animal that top the charts for me in disgust, terror, and fascination. Really cool to learn more about the way they live.

That went from constructive criticism to unnecessary personal attack in record time.

Weird. I tried searching ginger and had no problem finding recipes that included it as an ingredient.

Absolutely none of that is true, and I challenge you to make a compelling, objective case for any of it.

Sounds like selection bias.

> Would you really expect a smut peddler to behave ethically?

I would hold them to the same ethical standards as any other industry. There's nothing inherently unethical or immoral about porn; your ad hominem in silly to say the least.

We're days away from catching up to France.