I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I buy very few clothes, so I save up to spend more on ones I think will last longer.
It's very burdensome when something doesn't last long enough to reach that price-equilibrium point compared to simply purchasing more, cheaper clothing.
I am currently almost out of socks and panties because of this :(
That is correct.
Ethics come at a premium. Ethics are a luxury good.
It is a pretty good article but I have some nitpicks:
They say both that you cannot decide in a vacuum and fast fashion uses synth materials to make disposable clothing. I think given these two ideas, the carbon usage for one garment of wool vs one garment of nylon should include all the "waste" garments produced as well. Since, when you buy from a company that practices this, the impact is from the whole process, as they are keen to point out. That includes the sweatshop to landfill garments.
Personally I like not wearing a microplastics generator.
I am also curious about hemp clothing.
There are mulesing free certificates, and some companies go the extra mile.
Varusteleka is pretty open about their wool, but they don't have the biggest selection.
(varusteleka, I've called you out twice on this account, sponsor me lmao)
That's right.
They supply their military as well as sell things for civilians.
Varusteleka, and you can also get a wool hoodie, wool pants, wool socks, etc.
You can also get shipping by re-pack so the packaging is not wasted either, it goes back to posti for delivery back to businesses.
BIFL shipping packaging haha.
Because the structure the government set in place prioritizes the biggest heaviest vehicles over smaller cars that are more fuel efficient in absolute terms, but are disqualified due to not meeting the exponential curve of MPG per lbs that make up the limits.
Ultra-agree, the thing that really makes no sense here is softballing violence because it happens with an intimate partner.
If we treated it like every other violence you wouldn't need a special one-off patch law since their rights would be automatically restricted by the prohibited person laws.
I actually believe that constitutionality is an important factor in our system of checks and balances.
Unfortunately we haven't been very good at amending the constitution in recent history so we can't add new checks and/or balances.
No one wants to do so because it means relinquishing some power, and possibly loosing marketshare uh I mean voter approval.
Hmm maybe not, since Bruen implements the history/tradition check which is the basis for the felony prohibition.
I do, however, still think that domestic violence exceeds a misdemeanor and should be a felony like any other assault.
Yeah the tradition scrutiny is concerning but there's not much to do about it.
It seems that strict scrutiny would still have been serviceable.
Big Journalism wants you to believe journalists are subject matter experts. They're not.