If you read what the OP said, he acknowledged that it's not necessarily possible to act in 100% accordance with one's moral beliefs. And it would be more fair to the OP the recognize that he is talking about one specific atrocity, as he has mentioned and reminded us. It sounds stupid when you imply that people must either be perfectly moral or else just not give a **** and adjust their moral outlooks to what they can or cannot do (i.e. they should forgive all moral atrocities due to powerlessness to completely reverse them all).

I'm sure that it helps you to place your entire head firmly in the sand. Do whatever feels right, I guess.

For the record, I wasn't saying the OP needed to be morally perfect in order to raise an issue, or even that this issue isn't worth raising. Just pointing out that knowing those guilt tactics could be used for any number of other ordinary purchases makes them seem much less compelling to me.

Nope it's too late now, you're banned. We don't allow different opinions here!

:clap: well said, that's kind of what I was trying to say but I apparently didn't communicate it well, haha

Not to mention how classist it is to think that it's possible to live an entirely cruelty free life.