Higher calory diets aren’t just for pro athletes, some people just need to eat more food to sustain themselves, i.e. hetero men needing to eat 25% more than hetero women, or just larger and taller people needing to eat more in general.

But that’s not even the basis of what I’m trying to say and I have a feeling you didn’t attempt to read it past the first sentence. Like I said, I don’t eat sweets, meanwhile crops like sugar and coco require huge amounts of raw harvest to produce only a small amount of the final product, and are infamous for abuses of slave labor and unlivable working conditions in places in South America.

Does this then make me, a non-sweet eating omnivore, better than a vegan who likes to have candy? Do we need to each determine how much slave labor our individual diets support to see who the best leftsist is? This whole argument applies to other foods like oils, grains, etc. too. If you want to be vegan, then that’s okay, but attacking omnivores is just so unnecessarily devisive and counterproductive towards solving issues like slave labor.

And yet I’m sure you still eat things, purchase things, take part in things that are completely unnecessary towards basic human needs.

In that case, what point does comparing the total percentage of slave labor you contributed towards do except create a moral hierarchy of good to bad leftists (or just people in general) that you want to put yourself in? Should the omnivore be shamed that they rank worse on that hierarchy than the vegan? Should the vegan be shamed that they rank worse than the monk? I would argue that it is the intent behind people’s actions- do they oppose slave labor, do they believe in equality- that matters much more than individual lifestyle choices. And arguing that such a moral heirarchy should exist only serves to alienate and divide.

cease this atomic individualism