As a Tennessean, I’d be shocked and dismayed.

But I’d still say throw her in the slammer.

Also consider a healthcare career. As a teenager, I wanted to do computer science/engineering, and sometimes I do wish I had stayed on that track. But now, as a nurse, I could get a job in any state in the US by tomorrow. I dare you to try to find a hospital that doesn’t have open nursing positions. Even when the economy goes down, people still get sick. Even if society collapses, the knowledge/skills will be useful.

And if you don’t want to change diapers or deal with blood, there are still options; I’m in psychiatry and rarely have to deal with either.

I really don’t understand why I constantly see this sentiment on every post pertaining to protests. Rome wasn’t built in a day. How do you expect the masses to go directly to violent revolution when many of them don’t even recognize there’s a problem, and most of them have spent their whole lives in a system which hasn’t required any political participation at all? Drawing attention to the problems is how you get more people active.

Obviously, protests won’t do anything to directly influence the corrupt leaders in any meaningful or beneficial way. I don’t know anyone who actually hopes for that. But a handful of individuals resorting to political violence will be easily quashed by the fascists’ enforcers and then demonized or ignored by the fascist-friendly media, so the logical thing is to make the movement too big to fail or ignore. Drawing attention to the problems is how you get more people active.

Something something only the best people?

I don’t quite follow your argument. Are you suggesting it requires more cropland to make vegan food than meat? If everyone ate crop-derived foods in place of livestock-derived foods, we’d need less cropland, because livestock animals are not perfect energy converters. I.e., it takes more than a pound of feed to get a pound of beef.

Or are you saying it’s hypocritical of a vegan/vegetarian to eat products of agriculture because of the damage to the natural environment and animals which reside in it? The only non-hypocritical thing for me to do in that case would be to kill myself. Forgive me if I don’t. Perfect is the enemy of good, and so I’ll choose to minimize harm where I can.

We can’t eliminate all suffering and harm, so we shouldn’t even try reducing it? Perfect is the enemy of good. For many if not most vegans, it’s about minimizing harm. Many are motivated by ecological concern as well.

Some insects die on my car’s grill when I’m driving. I still go to work every day while calling myself vegan. Literally the only non-hypocritical action would be to kill myself. Forgive me if I don’t.

My understanding was that it was a “no modern weapons” thing. That is, pre-1900 weapons were “acceptable”, hence why the pirates and wild west sets could have guns, but the police sets do not. To my (absolutely non-expert) knowledge, Indiana Jones sets only had revolvers, a pre-1900 technology. As I recall, there was a bit of controversy when they released the Sopwith Camel (a WWI-era fighter plane, i.e. post-1900) set with machine guns on it.

The Star Wars sets have fantasy weapons, not real modern weapons. Why that or a revolver should be seen as meaningfully different from a modern gun is, evidently, left as an exercise for the consumer. In any case, clearly the stricture has been relaxed over the years.

Eh, I’m not sure I would say that. Someone can love/appr ciate and want something even knowing that procuring the thing has ethical problems. Desiring something isn’t the same as being okay with the problems that come with acquiring it. It’s the being okay with procuring a diamond despite the ethical problems and bullshit that would be a massive red flag to me.

For myself, I’d be having serious second thoughts about a relationship with a person who felt an expensive ring was somehow necessary. But merely wanting it, particularly if out of a sense of tradition or symbolism rather than as some silly signal of wealth, wouldn’t perturb me.