To think you don’t always need to cut your nose off to spite your face?

I boycott a few things I don’t agree with and it’s not about changing the company. I know my couple of pounds on kitkats won’t make any difference. It’s about not letting it change me - there are things I don’t want to turn a blind eye to and ignore in the world. So I’m inclined to think good on them especially because I’ve faltered when I’ve been under pressure from the kids before and I regret it now.

I’d start carrying around some sweets tbh. In case that happens again. Is she diabetic? She needs to keep some on hand.

I think a principle is a principle and if they caved then clearly they don’t believe it that strongly. Hence why I have no such principles…

I don't think you quite followed what you were responding to.

I haven’t said that at all. Agreeing with someone’s principles and acknowledging their right to adhere to them are different things.

You’d like this to be about whether your opinion is better than someone else’s - but it’s immaterial to other’s principles.

Feel free. If you're saying you respect/admire all principles no matter how Illogical, irrational and downright dangerous for others, I expect no less.

I know you didn't want to get into this, and I promise I won't start a back and forth, but it makes me so sad that other women think that women's rights to single sex care without males (regardless of their self identified 'gender') is something to boycott. As that's what Rowling's stance is. She has trans friends; she isn't being personal, it's to protect women (and children) from predatory men. For 98/99% of sexual assaults (including rape) the perpetrators are male, over 80% of victims female (official ons govt stats). The supreme court has clarified that women's rights and rights to equality are based on our biological sex.

Exclusion of males is necessary to protect women in certain understandable circumstances. Such as in domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, prisons and also in changing rooms - basically anywhere women need to be in a state of undress or are vulnerable. I genuinely do not understand women who disagree with this position. Male violence and sexual assault is not our problem to solve; if those males who identify as women-gender don't like using facilities that match their sex then it's up to other men to accept them, not for us to budge up. Particularly in the most vulnerable situations (as listed above).

Also, to answer your post - I think your mil stuck to her principles to the detriment of her health, so perhaps in this occasion she should have accepted the chocolate. I definitely don't agree with those who refuse blood transfusions of family members and they then die. It's just so...pointless ..

Not going to Universal doesn’t equal a miserable life. Millions of children will never have that opportunity, it’s not really a deprivation and while I don’t agree with the principle it’s not hurting anyone to say no.

I personally respect people with this much integrity. They are the ones who change the world

So glad I aren't this pathetic in life. Agree with you op.

Some people need the drama and attention firmly on them. That's all it is.

It isn’t like that at all. Neither of OP’s examples had anyone insisting everyone act like them, only making choices for themselves based on their principles. The MIL wasn’t smacking kitkats out of other people’s hands, and it wasn’t implied that the mother is forbidding other people to go to universal - just that she herself won’t pay for the tickets and go. That might extend to saying her children can’t go with anyone else but we don’t know that - and everyone makes parenting decisions for their kids so it’s hardly the crime of the century. She’s not saying no can go ever.

it’s no different than a vegan simply existing and eating vegan food - surely you don’t think it’s reasonable for vegans to eat meat when they’re out or at someone else’s house to not inconvenience anyone?

Ah. I see. Forgive me if I completely disregard your argument then.

Ideally, yes. Some peoples "principles" are beyond idiotic.

Agree. It’s like a Vegan insisting her entire family be vegan because they are. Erm no.

This. It’s not a principle if it only applies when it’s convenient.

So people should only stick to principles that you agree with?

I slightly wonder if you're not oversimplifying?

Are you absolutely 100% sure the reasons were what you imagine?

I can totally picture how someone might cite JKR's personal views as the straw that broke the camel's back, or as the fig leaf to their children, when explaining why they're not going to do that. But, I'm also aware that when my DD begs endlessly to be allowed to do something, I usually give her one simple (ideally, understandable) reason why I don't like it, rather than trying to explain all the many and various smaller reasons.

In the same way, isn't it more likely your MIL 1) didn't think it was so serious she couldn't cope and 2) just didn't want a kitkat? Even when you've low blood sugar, sometimes you know what will and will not help.

Edited to say: I do think generally it's a good idea to assume people are being basically sensible, rather than going looking for reasons to condemn them for being silly.

Situation Ethics: "Sometimes a man has to put aside his principles, and do the right thing!"

I agree with you. But some people who are very fixed on things, eg what they'll eat are often less flexible in other ways (Reddit psychology looks at some arguments about this), and there are some people who have very fixed ideas, even it upsets someone else, like your friend's kids.
My example was a man who refused to pay £3 to go into the club on his friend's birthday, because his principles meant he didn't pay door entry. It cost him a fortune to get a taxi alone as everyone else went in the club.
Oh well, takes all sorts, and he's happy to think he sticks to his principles!

My post was in response to someone saying they admire someone for sticking to their principles. I was arguing that in many cases they are not worthy of that admiration. Anti vaxers are a good example of a principle driven by ignorance.

because there are usually similarities. So boycotting nestle because of, say, their human rights issues or water usage practices but then downing a can of coke (obviously I don't know it was coke but there are only so many companies producing fizzy pop, very few of whom I imagine are squeaky clean) when coca-cola have also been criticised for human rights and water usage issues seems a little hypocritical.

It's not as like (pretending OP's example were the same person) saying 'well if you criticise nestle for human rights practices in their countries of production you should also boycott anything linked to JKR because of her views on trans people.' Those would be two completely separate things and it would be irrational to correlate them.

is she a T1 diabetic/insulin dependent?

if not surely it wasn’t a “medical emergency” as blood sugars won’t go low enough to cause a real issue. Feel a bit crappy and shaky, yes, but given time her body would rectify it naturally.

so no, not unreasonable to refuse a kitkat, she’s not going to die either way.

if she’s insulin dependent that’s a completely different issue and most T1D would know their blood sugar reading and it needed rectifying immediately.

did this van thing only sell kitkats? Absolutely nothing else would do? Cup of tea, cans of coke, flapjack? Very strange snack bar…

That’s what principles are, though, surely? We can’t force everyone to think the same way or value the same things. The fact that you are affected by other people’s principles is by-the-by to them having them, technically speaking.

She meant not eating the Kit Kat when she needed the sugar. The pop was the alternative.

Not sure. Anti-vaxers believe they are standing firm on their principals but there is a point where it impacts other people.

Imagine having some sort of episode that can be easily resolved by eating a chocolate bar and it's impacting those around you emotionally and possibly risking death. Not sure fizzy drinks manufacturers are better than chocolate makers to be honest which is ironic.

I also find that people who care so strongly about particular issues seem to pick and choose what things they feel bad enough to boycott.

And that’s a problem because….?

I don’t understand the thought process that sees people cannot have a cause. It’s either all causes or none of them.

This. While I am sure OP has a valid point somewhere these are terrible examples.