Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
993
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • the chocolate mint is fine. I prefer the original flavor powder tho.

  • i found meandering, multifaceted comments muddy the waters. I think the shorter comments keep it much clearer.

  • you’re the only one who replies like this

    cogently, on-topic, and without personal attacks?

  • this is totally disanalogous: no such contract exists between me and the store that has sold me something. I already have the product and they already have the money. if they close shop and run away with the money, that is just as valid as continuing to act as a retailer.

  • You have, via the transitive property, paid for a farm to kill another chicken.

    there is no transitive property, unless you think the people running the store and the farm have no free will. i don't make their decisions for them.

  • You have paid the company to pay a farm to kill another chicken.

    no. i paid for the food they had at that moment. there is no other transaction for which i am responsible.

  • You bought a chicken, and gave the company some number of dollars and now the company is going to spend some number of dollars more on chickens than it otherwise would have.

    than it otherwise would have.

    this is a counterfactual. it cannot be proven

  • If you buy a chicken from the store, they will take your few dollars that you spent and spend it on another chicken to replace the one you bought.

    assuming they are open long enough to place another order, and that they don't decide to change their inventory levels and become vegan. frankly, i'm not responsible for what they decide in the future. they could take the money and close shop. it's entirely up to them.

  • they don't segregate the money. it's fungible and all goes in the same pool. no one is responsible for the decisions they make except the people making the decisions.

  • this is a personal attack. what I say is true regardless of whether your characterization is favorable.

  • you didn't vote in the primary either.

    this is purely a personal attack. it's speculative. it has nothing to do with whether I'm right.

  • i am. there is no rational reason to believe rights exist. they are a fiction. you have no right to due process: the fisa courts deny that all the time. same for a right against warrantless search and seizure.

    no rights are inalienable, so the language of rights is worse than useless: it's a dangerous fiction that will lead people into endangering themselves to those in power.