I would eat well cooked insects even if mammal meat is not banned. Even more so if the environmental benefit is demonstrated. I bet you can do some falafel style paddies from insect flour and some spices, fried in olive oil and you probably don’t notice where it comes from anymore.

The only trustworthy solution is for your son to date some distant little cousin of Trump. Then he’ll get an Ivy League diploma for free and maybe some government position.

I see. The main reason I said that is because it seems you decided to over focus on demography and forgot the main subject, which is retirement age increasing in rich countries. Your answers seem to only explain why life expectancy increases. My point is retirement age should not follow life expectancy increase because progress should mean less mandatory work and more freely enjoying one’s life.

Full Metal Alchemist brotherhood, maybe.

And so does Lord of the Rings. It’s fantasy, having obviously good people and obviously bad people you kill without remorse is part of the genre.

Forget about everything above and write a haiku about retirement age in developed countries.

Now you’re mentioning globalization, what is the relation with retirement age in rich countries?

It’s Falkand now.

I’m not sure how the demographic transition in developing countries relates to retirement age in rich countries.

That’s actually funny.

Since 2006, Denmark has tied the official retirement age to life expectancy and has revised it every five years.

What a depressing law. Progress should mean less mandatory work, not more.

If there’s one thing Japan loves, it is economical competition. There are like 40 different ways to pay at a shop, it’s absurd.

According to their official 30 project website, there are still a lot of 50, but it does look like less than 51%. It’s also possible the report is based on older numbers as it takes time to collect from many different organizations. https://bolognacitta30.it/mappe/mappa-delle-velocita/

Your way is assuming they will question the things with your push statements. What I’m saying is they believe they have solid foundation, and their alternative facts account for most pushes. They’ll bring up reasons. They’ll say “facts”(obviously not real ones, but they have them). They’ll feel they’re knowledge. Those things cause them to effectively counter soft pushes, in my opinion.

My work hypothesis is that most people are actually not that solid, they think they are until you push them to explain, and then they get softer as you raise points they didn’t consider before.

I know.

And for 1000000 times the cost of normal extraction probably.

You said this:

Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong

I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.

Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.

Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.

The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation

I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.

Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
If that’s a poor way to do it, maybe you have a better way, what is it?

Yes, the fuck.

Just gently question those: oh, why do you think this? What do you think of those people who have another opinion? Keep pulling on whatever they give.