Senal

hmm, a somewhat narrow definition, but in that case, sure.

In theory they are supposed to pay a commensurate amount of taxes.

Unless you're encrypting them yourself (and even then), there is no such thing as private user files in the cloud.

Especially with any of the big corps.

As with a lot of things, it's contextual and subjective.

In my , personal experience, it depends partly on what of therapy methods will work for the current you and partly on chemistry/connection.

Like aromantic dating, you might hit it off immediately, you might go through x number of potentials before you find one that works.

I currently seem to respond best to conversation partner dynamics, like brain rubber ducking with add-ons.

Previously i've not responded well to that at all, and purely analytical detached professionalism was the way in.

so TL;DR;

For me it's:

• General Vibe
• Perceived competence (actual competence is important, but it's no help if you don't believe they are competent)
• Actual Competence
• And further down the line, results.

In that order.

Each one is required to get to the following stage.

As for how it actually feels, i got nothing, that's partly why the therapy in the first place.

Life

I always think of vegan as a spectrum, (many of the best things are a spectrum).

With sliding scales in there for stuff like morals, ethics, culture, circumstance etc.

Once you hit a threshold of vegan traits you're a real™ vegan.

My judgement on this is also suspect, so ymmv.

Less harm is better than more harm. It’s also impossible to walk around without ever stepping on insects, but just because some harm is inevitable that doesn’t mean I should walk around and slaughter everything that I can find.

Agreed, it then becomes a decision about the cost/benefit ratio of how you spend your time/energy trying to reduce harm.

That doesn’t mean that veganism is ‘perfect’ in all aspects. Who knows - maybe in the future we’ll find ways to produce healthy and delicious food straight out of air and electricity without any involvement of living organisms and thereby further reduce harm. But for the moment doing what we can would be a huge step forward.

Veganism might not be the maximally effective activity from an ROI point of view.

I personally see it as a "doing what we can live with" as opposed to "doing what we can", the difference being the impact personal decisions have on the choice of harm reduction activities.

It's borderline pedantry on the face of it, but the distinction is important for me.

If accurate (the idea, not the numbers), that sounds reasonable.

I'd argue there's much more to it that just calories in/out though.

Harm reduction should ideally account for as much of the system as possible.

ah, that's my bad for not properly phrasing my question.

Like how, "bacon = not vegan" and "cheese = not vegan" and "honey=controversy, for some reason".

Is there some sort of ruling passed down from the vegan starchamber that says "animal fertiliser grown plants = not vegan" or is it not a common enough consideration to have an agreed upon consensus?

So like a harm reduction thing?

Hmm, i know this is probably sarcasm.

Real question though, does animal based fertiliser have an actual impact on vegan choices ?

I hadn't even considered it until just now.