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"
judgy_jackdaw
joined 2 weeks ago
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"
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.