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.

As a vegan:

A. wtf, why would this warrant banning? At most it should have been a warning to use a less hostile tone? B. Why is it absurd? Should I be okay with a burglary in my neighborhood when there are wars going on somewhere else? Your equivocating meat consumption with wasteful transport suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of veganism. No sentient, feeling creature has to suffer and die for someone to take a jet ride, but they do for me to eat a hamburger. I think the private jetters should feel guilty too, but for different reasons. In any case, how do you feel about dog meat?

Regarding availability and cost efficiency: shipping soybeans from Kansas fields to a cattle ranch in Nebraska and then the beef to a grocer in Idaho is less efficient than shipping soybeans from Kansas to the grocer (obviously, this is an oversimplification). Not to mention that animals aren’t perfect energy converters, reducing efficiency further. I’m not arguing that it’d be easy for the whole world to convert to veganism, but in most developed countries it’d actually be more efficient and cost effective (at the society level; not necessarily for all individuals) for most people not to eat meat. Especially if subsidies for animal agriculture were redirected to plant agriculture.

In any case, who’s actually “ramming” ideology? As a casual lemmy user, I do see a surpising number of discussions on the matter of veganism, but most of what I’ve seen has been pretty civil. I do recall a lot of self-defeating thoughtless toxicity from vegans in the vegan subreddits, but I haven’t witnessed it myself on lemmy.

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.