How many degrees of separation do y’all deem acceptable and why? If Mullvad donated that money directly, that’s bad. If the owner donated that money, that’s also bad. What if the owner instead bought something from another company and the owner of the company donated the money? What if this second owner then bought something else from yet another company and the owner of that company donated the money? When can you stop saying “my money is used to fund this thing I don’t want”? Because money will spread so fast in the economy that inevitably, no matter what choices you make, your money will fund things you don’t like. For example, should the “true scotsman” vegan never buy anything because it is pretty much guaranteed that their money will end up in the pocket of someone who will spend it on meat? Again, I am not criticizing anyone, I am simply asking: where do you draw the line, why, and why not draw the line one step further than you currently are?

why, just because you say so?

i am not claiming one is right and the other is wrong. i am simply claiming that, for reasons outside of my control, eating meat evokes a positive emotion within me while zoophilia evokes a negative emotion. just like i cannot help it when i find vanilla ice cream more delicious than chocolate ice cream, i cannot help it when i experience a positive emotion when eating meat and a negative emotion when confronted with zoophilia. i am not making a factual statement about reality, i am just expressing my emotions and letting that guide my sense of morality. and i am a mere observer of my emotions, not their author.

the distinction between food and supplements is purely regulatory and semantic. at what point does something become a food or a supplement? if i lack vitamin c and i eat an orange, have i supplemented with vitamin c? b12 supplements are made through microbial fermentation, like alcohol or vinegar or lactic acid. if i need iron and i take a pill, i’ve supplemented with iron, but if need sodium and i eat salt, have i supplemented? starch and sugar are simple chemicals extracted from whole foods, yet they are still considered foods. my point is that there is no true objective distinction between food and supplements, it’s just a vague label like “natural/unnatural”

emotivism. when i eat burger i say “yay”, when you fuck animal i say “boo”

bruh the alternative to tiktok should be absolutely nothing. imagine if the conversation was “europeans are dependent on highly addictive american and chinese drugs” and the conclusion was “so we should create our own drugs instead” and not “let’s do our best to make people not use the drugs”

The problems they listed are unsolvable, but you have apparently lacked the intellectual curiosity to investigate why the supposed solutions would not actually work. I won’t debate the basics of the impracticability of Marxism in large and interconnected societies with you because it will take too much time and effort, and I have no way to know if you’re genuinely interested or just another troll.

See, others can do it too ;)

Person A and person B have to do the same exact task e.g. fix a car or whatever. It takes person A one hour to do the job. Person B is more skilled and experienced, and thus can do the exact same job in 30 minutes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but by your logic I understand that person A should be paid double of what person B is paid, because they gave double of their equally important time. One could argue that since it’s the same job being done, they should be paid the same. I would argue person B deserves even more pay for the exact same job that person A did, because they SAVED time. I agree time is valuable, thus doing a job faster is more valuable than doing the exact same job but slower.