I appreciate and respect all your points and largely agree. For the record I won't be buying a Tesla, I just thought it was an interesting discussion. I do want to comment on the "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" aphorism/maxim, in a way that I think supports your argument or at least the logic underlying it.

Firstly, even if it is the case that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, that doesn't appear to suggest that there can't possibly be varying degrees of morality of different forms of consumption under capitalism. In other words, even if all consumption under capitalism is unethical, there can still be more ethical (or less unethical) and less ethical (or more unethical) consumption under capitalism, at least in theory. Not all consumption under capitalism is necessarily ethically identical or equivalent.

If it were the case that all consumption under capitalism was equal in moral wrongness or moral weight, with no variation, then it seems to follow that supporting a Tesla would be no worse or better than supporting any other vehicle (or product/service for that matter). I don't think this is true, and I think your point demonstrates that it isn't true as well. It's possible that it would be worse than supporting other things, and there could also be things that are worse than supporting a Tesla in theory.

This is important not just for the sake of a semantic technicality, but because people (consumers) frequently use the "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" phrase to deny any moral responsibility for their actions related to consumption. I think that precisely because we do have differing choices available to us (within the flawed capitalistic system), which are not necessarily morally equal (even if they are all immoral, just to different degrees or in different ways), and some consumption decisions are more unethical than others, we do have moral responsibility to choose the least unethical (or "most ethical") options that we can realistically access.

To suggest that "because all things are bad, it doesn't matter what we do" (not that you're saying this, quite the opposite), would be somewhat evoking an appeal to futility and nirvana fallacy; because nothing is perfect, there is no difference between any solution/option and any effort to reduce harm is invalid. And I think this is the mentality that people are embodying when they use the no ethical consumption under capitalism line to justify their morally questionable decisions.

Secondly, and somewhat less importantly depending on intended meaning behind the phrase, I'm not certain that there is no such thing as ethical consumption under a capitalist rule in technical terms, as despite the inherent ethical problems with capitalism, I don't think it's really morally reasonable to expect someone to do something they can't physically/possibly do, or which would involve self-sacrifice. If there were truly no ethical consumption under capitalism, then if someone wanted to be perfectly ethical, the only morally permissible option would be to unalive themself (which comes with other moral consequences). So it's basically a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which doesn't quite sit well with me. I appreciate the sentiment behind the saying, as it alludes to the inherent & inescapable problems with capitalism (which can only be addressed by changing the system entirely), but I think it makes sense that ought implies can (Kant's ethical formula whereby if something is morally obligated to do or an action is one's moral duty to carry out (or refrain from doing, if it's in reference to negative duties), then it must be within a moral agent's ability to do so - or I would add, within the scope of generally intuitive reasonability as an expectation for them to do, since it might be technically possible for them to do something if it involved significantly harming or compromising their own life, but that expectation or imposition on them would violate their own rights to self preservation, autonomy, etc). In other words, if someone is truly doing everything they can within reason or practicability to avoid making unethical consumption choices, or to make the least unethical choices available to them in a broken system that they didn't design themself or choose to be born into, then in my book, they are being ethical as a moral agent, despite the unethical capitalist system they live in. But we should all do what we can to help reform it additionally where possible.

I hope this makes sense & wasn't too convoluted, pedantic or annoying :)

Sean cares 🥺

I suffer from social anxiety, but I'm unsure how you inferred that based on my post or my writing style (I also have incoherent thoughts sometimes, so it may just be coincidental). Not offended at all btw, I only mildly care (lol). Just curious. And I appreciate your comment.

Yeah, "who asked?" is the other one. Also doesn't seem literal, because does someone really need to ask you about something in order for you to offer your opinion on it? Is this one of those weird, oppressive, "you shall only speak when spoken to" situations, arguably harkening back to multiple forms of historical discrimination/oppression & attempts to silence people or restrict freedom of speech/dissenting thought (not consciously, I'm almost positive)?. Seems like a thought-terminating cliche, basically meaningless, just a method of shutting anyone down without having to provide any justified reason. Also could be bullying depending on how it's used. But yeah, mostly it's just nonsense. I appreciate your comments & advice.

Yes, I think so. Lay it to rest and stop f***ing with it, finally.

"One's rights end where another's begin" - Morally speaking I agree with this, and I've heard this phrase used by animal rights activists to argue that humans shouldn't have the right to violate animals' (moral) rights to be free, to not be killed, harmed, exploited etc. at least by humans who are moral agents & don't need to do so.

Again, there is a difference between moral and legal rights. Just like in the case of human slavery where some humans technically had the legal right to enslave other humans - and I would agree that those laws were unethical to begin with since the moral rights of those slave owners to do things ("positive" rights) ended where the moral rights of the victims to be free from oppression/harm/etc ("negative" rights) began - many people argue that the current legal rights of humans to, basically, enslave & kill non-human animals, are similarly built on unethical laws, and don't translate to moral rights, in the sense that humans' rights also end where other animals' rights begin, morally speaking (such a position would of course entail action to liberate non-human animals via boycotting of animal exploitation (veganism) as a moral obligation, similarly to how when the laws that enabled people to own slaves were in place, boycotting the slave trade and being an abolitionist would also be considered a moral obligation by most people today).

Just want to add that I think it's unfortunate that people dismiss anxiety issues by saying "everyone has that". While it's true most people might experience some anxiety, I don't think everyone has the same level of anxiety, and not everyone has an extremely debilitating type of anxiety to where it warrants an understanding that they might struggle more with some things and deserve some leeway or simply understanding and empathy.

There are literally some clinics that have chiropractors in training who aren't as qualified to do chiropractic as experienced chiropractors. I know a place where they use chiropractors who are still in training and developing experience, and lots of people say to avoid it and go to more professional chiropractors.

Thanks. Recognised as a medical issue but not as a disability, is what I meant. Certain medical issues aren't considered disabilities as far as I know, even though they can affect a person's ability to do things. Or are you saying that all medical conditions are disabilities? Apologies if I was mistaken

Also I'm just wondering, isn't it possible the DSM could be behind in recognising certain conditions? It may be widely recognised, but just not necessarily by the DSM. I get that you might not call it a disability then but perhaps still a health issue? I'm not sure

When used as an insult, perhaps. Also not just the gender + an expletive "fucker" but also the suggestion of sexual dominance in relation to that gender.

Go to ElwoodDogMeat.com ! Yes!