Not to mention her luxury room and board, the shopping sprees, and the jewelry gifts.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what "processed" food constitutes, to begin with.

According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.

As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there's nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.

While vaping is monumentally safer for one's health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one's health, I agree.

But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely "processed" versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn't a worthwhile comparison.

They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.

Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.

I don't know what a "health food" would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what "Impossible" etc. are.

"Life Circle," though?

I think you're about to cook them.

Well, an assumed connection between legality and morality is perhaps part of the disconnect.

Having sex with 16 and 17 year olds is not morally wrong *simply because they are legally considered minors and you an adult.

Having sex with 16 and 17 year olds is considered morally wrong, by some, because the state of their mental maturity is often far below that of an adult even 5 years older. Consider the biological "growth" of the human brain; having not fully developed, their behavioral maturity follows suit. This means their ability to reason, their ability to act in their own best interest, is less than your own. At a certain level of disparity, this imbalance is usually considered "taking advantage" of someone. Asking them to do things they have less an ability to understand than yourself starts to look a lot like coercion.

*ETA

I think it could very well be dissolving at least a coating. I would use more dilute IPA. 👍

Believe it or not, there have been well-reasoned, aptly articulated arguments against capitalism delivered by earnest, enlightened people (and members of every class), delivered chiefly out of compassion for their fellow man, for over 200 years.

Anti-capitalism sentiment is in no way a transient sensation. It's clear from your comments you aren't well-read on the subject, and I don't mean that as an insult; with some even-keeled reading of relevant works rather than knee-jerk dismissal of all criticism of capitalism as people looking for something to "blame for their woes," you will undoubtedly have a better grasp on the world and your own position in it.

Goodbye Horses by Q Lazzarus - Silence of the Lambs

It was an episode of "Hannibal" - episode S01E02 "Amuse-Bouche."

I more or less agree, but you keep using "believe" when you ought to use "belief." Just FYI.

Good point well made. I think it's usually naive wishful thinking (for a "just world" that makes sense and is going to be OK, actually) that allows a liberal capitalist apologist to point to classical economics and say "see the companies are hurting," but the companies don't have feelings, and the owners and shareholders are feeling just fine.