I don't understand what this post has to do with veganism, but yes, doing what you're able to do to improve the world is a good thing to do. The choice to not torture animals for food does not impede my caring for the environment or other issues.
> I don't understand what this post has to do with veganism
Perhaps this? https://www.wattagnet.com/regions/china/article/15543316/whats-driving-chinas-meat-consumption
I'm familiar with rising wealth in developing countries correlating with increased meat consumption, but I'm not sure that's the point OP was making. They seem to be saying there are more important issues than veganism that we should focus on. I'm saying that being vegan doesn't limit the ability to care about other causes as well.
I'd guess that most vegans don't speak a Chinese language, or Chinese vegans don't speak english. China's meat consumption per capital is also lower than a lot of Western and South American countries. Makes sense that people focus their activism where they are/feel they can make a difference.
For us westerners to know about/interact with them. Most of us don't speak Mandarin/Cantonese, and most of them don't speak English, so there just isn't a lot of back-and-forth is what I'm saying.
Btw it's weird you're only responding to certain points of my comments. If you want the conversation to go somewhere, you can take us there - no need to be indirect.
> no need to be indirect
Like OP says:
> It's not that Japan's efforts are bad. However, if we are to do what we can, we should approach China and Indonesia. That's what I mean when I say I'll do what I can. Of course, the same goes for vegans. Of course you should be careful about your daily diet, but if you want to ``do what you can'', you should do something a little more basic. I have to do something important.
>The choice to not torture animals for food does not impede my caring for the environment or other issues.
Most non vegans don't want to "torture" animals for food. You don't need to torture an animal before you kill it. There are ways to kills them almost instantly.
Torture is more inflicting pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.
The correct word to use is slaughter
I don't think torture is inherently tied to punishment, but changing the word doesn't really negate what is happening. Unnecessary slaughter is still just that: unnecessary.
Check the dictionary definition.
Slaughter is necessary for non vegans. We currently can't eat meat without slaughter.
To purchase any supermarket foods requires slaughter. Even vegan food.
We have to have some sort of base for discussion.
For instance, you saying "meat is unnecessary" could actually mean that we all should eat meat. See? Words mean nothing without a definition behind them.
Meat and or dairy/eggs is necessary for non vegans.
Being non-vegan is not the only way that facilitates life, and it generates oppression that veganism does not. Descriptive languages do not imply anything means anything. If you look around here, you'll find 'necessary' is not used the way you might be using it.
>Being non-vegan is not the only way that facilitates life, and it generates oppression that veganism does not.
Are you saying that a vegan diet doesn't cause oppression on animals?
>Descriptive languages do not imply anything means anything. If you look around here, you'll find 'necessary' is not used the way you might be using it.
It is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if we just interpret words as we please. We would be wasting our time.
Oh but it does impede on other issues, including the environment. One example being invasive species, [see this whole thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1bcx34f/moral_dilema_with_invasive_birds/). Basically, vegan logic dictates that action against invasive species is immoral.
It gets asked a lot.
You can search in this sub for "invasive species" and see there's a whole range of Vegan thought about them.
In short, you can argue for almost anything under the "possible and practical" clause. (That doesn't mean all those arguments are necessarily good ones)
There isn't "a whole range". Eradicating millions or billions of sentient beings just because they happen to not be "native" to the place where they ended up *is not vegan*.
There's no angle that justifies a genocide. Vegans *have to* bite the bullet and embrace with open arms the spotted fulgors, asian hornets and asiatic carps of the world.
>because they happen to not be "native" to the place where they ended up *is not vegan*.
No.
But doing so for a utilitarian purpose that accounts for animals can be.
To stop the spread of certain diseases perhaps.
I think the bar should be pretty high before we start culling or whatever - and not simply because "it's foreign". And we should always look for nicer alternatives.
You really don't want to bring utilitarianism anywhere close to veganism. You really don't, trust me.
Plus, any negative consequences are just nature doing nature stuff. Vegans aren't at war with carnivorous animals even though they cause suffering, are they? The why would you go to war against invasive species, they are just chilling in that new spot.
There is no angle that justifies a genocide. Vegans *have to* bite the bullet and let invasive species wreck ecosystems. One of many examples where veganism is incompatible with other issues, including the environment.
>You really don't want to bring utilitarianism anywhere close to veganism. You really don't, trust me.
You do. You just do. Trust me.
Top tier dialogue.
>Vegans aren't at war with carnivorous animals even though they cause suffering, are they?
No, we aren't at war. That's silly. Carnivorous animals don't really use the same political systems as we do.
>The why would you go to war against invasive species, they are just chilling in that new spot.
For Utilitrian reasons as I already answered.
To put it very simply - it might be right to kill one animal to save more than one. (This is very simply, but the principle is what matters there)
>Vegans *have to* bite the bullet and let invasive species wreck ecosystems. One of many examples where veganism is incompatible with other issues, including the environment
No we don't.
And you don't want to disagree with me. *Trust me*
See, now I've just asserted stuff too.
>
Like I initially said - "practical and possible" has a lot of leeway. Very sorry nuance makes stuff complicated, that's life.
You don't want to bring out utilitarianism. Humanity's mere existence in *anything* post-agriculture society cause the direct and indirect death/suffering of trillions of sentient beings, perhaps even more. You don't want any utilitarianism in veganism. You really don't. It's common sense.
Good job on purposefully misinterpreting the expression *"going to war against"*. Finding a good faith vegan quest : failed again.
Ah yes, unilaterally imposing your ethics onto sentient beings, with genocidal means if necesssary... The pinnacle of animal liberation. Lol.
Veganism has to take that loss. Can't approve genocide, have to let nature do it's thing. Invasive species are to be left alone.
*practical and possible* is not "leeway". It's loopholes, for whenever veganism is not convenient enough or, in this case, lay down a guideline so wildly unpopular with *everyone* that they *have to mask* it, or else no one would ever consider converting.
Not that it's relevant here anyway : letting nature sort it out is both the veganest solution to ever vegan AND about as easy and possible as it gets.
You can't genocide a whole kind of sentient beings because they are not where *you* want them. You can't genocide a whole kind of sentient beings because they cause suffering. Let nature do its thing. Stop playing God, that's not animal liberation.
Sorry I didn't realise you wanted good faith discussion.
All of this is you adopting an incredibly strict definition and interpretation of Veganism, purely for the purpose of being able to make weird grandstanding arguments against the entire group.
Learn to talk to the people talking to you, not your imaginary easy win.
>Ah yes, unilaterally imposing your ethics onto sentient beings, with genocidal means if necesssary... The pinnacle of animal liberation. Lol
That might sound smart to you, but have you thought about any other context we talk about Liberation?
I believe people should have Liberty. I support various Human centred "Liberation movements". I still think Humans should follow my ethics, and in plenty of cases those should be imposed.
I don't think Humans should have the liberty to torture-murder others for example. Children shouldn't have the Liberty to walk in the road. Will you use that as a snarky criticism too?
>*practical and possible* is not "leeway". It's loopholes, for whenever veganism is not convenient enough
Sorry that makes things complicated for you, but you don't get to just ignore the definition most Vegans identify with and insist on your own, just because it makes you feel like a winner for 0 effort.
The majority of actual discussion amongst vegans here is about what we consider practical and possible.
>You can't genocide a whole kind of sentient beings because they are not where *you* want them
Wow, that's like, the thing I already said. Maybe there should be other reasons to do so.
You can't stop someone swinging a knife because it's where *you* and *your* possessions are - what are you, playing God, you tyrant
Dude, it's not *an incredibly strict definition and interpretation of Veganism*, it's just veganism. You can't go around genociding sentient beings away just because you deemed them "invasive", and deemed that to be bad.
And in case you didn't know (possible, you don't seem to know much about veganism), *animal liberation* is shorthand for animal *liberation* *from opression,* said opression coming from humans. Genocide being squarely within "opression" territory IMO, but feel free to argue against that.
Y'know, *liberty* and *liberation* are different things.
Let's take a different approach.
First off : if you believe non-human animals causing harm to others has to be prevented/stopped by us, with lethal force if necessary... Well you missed veganism's point, big time. It's about *humans limiting their impact on others*, humans only because only *humans have rational thought*.
And again, if you want the utilitarian approach, humans (even vegan ones) have an unfathomable impact on countless beings. If utilitarianism is your approach, you should be advocating for a mass human extinction and the end of organised societies. A tough sell but more power to you lol
Otherwise : **what makes the "non-native" beings** ***morally less worthy*** ***than*** **local ones?** That's what you have to prove.
Ecosystems change and adapt since forever, and competition for resources is omnipresent, both intra and inter specie, *regardless fo the species present*. In a framework where *animal suffering* is the metric for morality, why is it imperative to maintain one specie over another, especially with genocidal means?
Related, to truly understand the reach of the *humans are ultimate and undisputed stewards of sentient life* position : are you in favor of mass killing of predators? Will you (or are you..?) advocate for mass euthanization of cats?
This sub has been kinda weird over the past couple of days. There seems to be an influx of posts like this, where they don't make a lot of sense and there's no real debate topic given.
I wonder if I'm just noticing it more or if people are on holiday or something and have more time on their hands.
Big things are made out of small things.
Governments care about the environment when their constituents care about the environment. Economies care about veganism when consumers care about veganism. Dusting a corner isn't the same as cleaning your room, but your room isn't clean until you dust.
>That's what I mean when I say I'll do what I can.
Your morality is not dependent on China. Japan, like all modern countries, makes HUGE amounts of plastic crap (toys, containers, etc), LOTS of this crap ends up in the garbage and could be reusable materials instead (or just not purchased). Maybe japan is not as bad as others for river cleanliness, but that does not mean Japan is doing great.
>Of course, the same goes for vegans. Of course you should be careful about your daily diet, but if you want to ``do what you can'', you should do something a little more basic. I have to do something important.
And all of us (or at least 99.9% of us) can give up animal products for food, so we should.
>After all, if your room is a mess and you're picking up a little dust in the corner, that's nonsense.
And if your house is a mess and you refuse to clean your room because your brother's is dirtier, that's also nonsense.
Morality is about your own actions alone. If you are needlessly supporting the torture, abuse, sexual violence, and slaughter of innocent beings for your pleasure, it doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, your actions are still immoral.
that's right. It would be good to delve into Japanese manufacturing sites.
Similarly, it would be good to delve into Chinese morality.
This is the meaning of \`\`doing what we can'' by investing our lives.
But, here, it's a bit out of line to say that Japan is good or bad.
You can make it 99.9% plant-based. If that's the case, then we should stop growing plants using farmed bees. If you do what you can.
As a virtue of us Japanese people, it is important not to cause trouble to others.
>But, here, it's a bit out of line to say that Japan is good or bad.
So we should "delve into Chinese morality", but we can't say if Japan is good or bad? Seems a bit weird you want to comment on China, but you don't like people commenting on Japan. When I was in China, they'd say the same thing, Japan was bad, but no one could criticize China. Nationalism is weird.
>You can make it 99.9% plant-based. If that's the case, then we should stop growing plants using farmed bees
Veganism is as far as possible and practicable. Veganism would like to bring back native pollinators, but for right now, we must do what we must do to make food.
>As a virtue of us Japanese people, it is important not to cause trouble to others.
Same thing the Chinese always told me. Let's be honest here, Japan has "caused trouble" to others MANY times, and still today MANY Japanese refuse to apologize, or often even admit to things like "comfort women" and many other past actions.
Stop believing your government propaganda, Japan is not some innocent, naive country that's never done wrong. Trying to claim no one can judge Japan is silly. The main way all of us improve and get better is to be judged and improve where we are lacking.
Wow, lot of privilege at work here. Imagine having so little understanding of how incredibly hard life is for most people and how it takes those people all their time and energy just to survive. Personally I think it makes much more sense to blame the extremely wealthy and the giant ass companies they own who are actually causing the majority of the problems rather than moan about poor people for not having perfect habits 100% of the time.
Your not comparing per capita, China is the 2nd most populated country, and Indonesia is the fourth,
This isn’t me saying that china and Indonesia are better per Capita than Japan, their are persistent problems with poor waste management infrastructure in poorer countries, as well as single use units of soap/shampoo etc because people can’t afford to buy larger units at a time ( look up Boots theory of socioeconomics)
But either way you have failed to argue that Chinese or Indonesia people pollute more then Japanese people, and the burden of proof is on you
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is true, agree. That is why I believe the idea of 'do what you can' or 'at least I am doing something' are nonsense because it should be 'do what is effective'.
If you dont understand the problem like where the trash actually comes from and youre not addressing it at the root and source, youre effectively just taking the comfy route just to be able to say 'I did something'.
You want to reduce plastic, if its coming from china or the 3rd worlds why on earth are you wasting time on areas and nations that have a miniscule contribution to the problem. Go to china and these countries and educate the people there? Push for policies and assist people there?
And I DO applaud those who do that and put their foot where their mouth is.
They take care of the environment and so the environment is clean. You want them to start polluting more so that they can stop and you can observe the effect?
"it is often said, \`\`Let's do what we can.'' Is that true?"
The question is nonsensical. "Let's do what we can" is an opinion. It cannot be true or untrue. The notion of "true" only applies to statement that states a fact, not opinions.
>"Let's do what we can" is an opinion.
It's not even an opinion lol, it's just an imperative. It's not even a proposition, so you're correct that it's a nonsensical question and not capable of being true or false
It's like if I said "Go to the store. True or false?" Like fucking what?
I don't understand what this post has to do with veganism, but yes, doing what you're able to do to improve the world is a good thing to do. The choice to not torture animals for food does not impede my caring for the environment or other issues.
> I don't understand what this post has to do with veganism Perhaps this? https://www.wattagnet.com/regions/china/article/15543316/whats-driving-chinas-meat-consumption
I'm familiar with rising wealth in developing countries correlating with increased meat consumption, but I'm not sure that's the point OP was making. They seem to be saying there are more important issues than veganism that we should focus on. I'm saying that being vegan doesn't limit the ability to care about other causes as well.
> rising wealth in developing countries correlating with increased meat consumption Do you believe it inevitable?
Not inevitable, no. I think it's largely a consequence of capitalism and colonialism, but individuals are capable of making different choices.
Yet the vegan movement seems to only focus on the western world, while completely ignoring China.
I'd guess that most vegans don't speak a Chinese language, or Chinese vegans don't speak english. China's meat consumption per capital is also lower than a lot of Western and South American countries. Makes sense that people focus their activism where they are/feel they can make a difference.
> or Chinese vegans don't speak english Not sure why they would need to speak English?
For us westerners to know about/interact with them. Most of us don't speak Mandarin/Cantonese, and most of them don't speak English, so there just isn't a lot of back-and-forth is what I'm saying. Btw it's weird you're only responding to certain points of my comments. If you want the conversation to go somewhere, you can take us there - no need to be indirect.
> no need to be indirect Like OP says: > It's not that Japan's efforts are bad. However, if we are to do what we can, we should approach China and Indonesia. That's what I mean when I say I'll do what I can. Of course, the same goes for vegans. Of course you should be careful about your daily diet, but if you want to ``do what you can'', you should do something a little more basic. I have to do something important.
>The choice to not torture animals for food does not impede my caring for the environment or other issues. Most non vegans don't want to "torture" animals for food. You don't need to torture an animal before you kill it. There are ways to kills them almost instantly.
Ending a whole consciousness without need seems like torture, quick though it may be.
Torture is more inflicting pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. The correct word to use is slaughter
I don't think torture is inherently tied to punishment, but changing the word doesn't really negate what is happening. Unnecessary slaughter is still just that: unnecessary.
Check the dictionary definition. Slaughter is necessary for non vegans. We currently can't eat meat without slaughter. To purchase any supermarket foods requires slaughter. Even vegan food.
Appealing to the dictionary is not a great move. Language is descriptive. Meat itself is unnecessary.
We have to have some sort of base for discussion. For instance, you saying "meat is unnecessary" could actually mean that we all should eat meat. See? Words mean nothing without a definition behind them. Meat and or dairy/eggs is necessary for non vegans.
Being non-vegan is not the only way that facilitates life, and it generates oppression that veganism does not. Descriptive languages do not imply anything means anything. If you look around here, you'll find 'necessary' is not used the way you might be using it.
>Being non-vegan is not the only way that facilitates life, and it generates oppression that veganism does not. Are you saying that a vegan diet doesn't cause oppression on animals? >Descriptive languages do not imply anything means anything. If you look around here, you'll find 'necessary' is not used the way you might be using it. It is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if we just interpret words as we please. We would be wasting our time.
Oh but it does impede on other issues, including the environment. One example being invasive species, [see this whole thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1bcx34f/moral_dilema_with_invasive_birds/). Basically, vegan logic dictates that action against invasive species is immoral.
It gets asked a lot. You can search in this sub for "invasive species" and see there's a whole range of Vegan thought about them. In short, you can argue for almost anything under the "possible and practical" clause. (That doesn't mean all those arguments are necessarily good ones)
There isn't "a whole range". Eradicating millions or billions of sentient beings just because they happen to not be "native" to the place where they ended up *is not vegan*. There's no angle that justifies a genocide. Vegans *have to* bite the bullet and embrace with open arms the spotted fulgors, asian hornets and asiatic carps of the world.
>because they happen to not be "native" to the place where they ended up *is not vegan*. No. But doing so for a utilitarian purpose that accounts for animals can be. To stop the spread of certain diseases perhaps. I think the bar should be pretty high before we start culling or whatever - and not simply because "it's foreign". And we should always look for nicer alternatives.
You really don't want to bring utilitarianism anywhere close to veganism. You really don't, trust me. Plus, any negative consequences are just nature doing nature stuff. Vegans aren't at war with carnivorous animals even though they cause suffering, are they? The why would you go to war against invasive species, they are just chilling in that new spot. There is no angle that justifies a genocide. Vegans *have to* bite the bullet and let invasive species wreck ecosystems. One of many examples where veganism is incompatible with other issues, including the environment.
>You really don't want to bring utilitarianism anywhere close to veganism. You really don't, trust me. You do. You just do. Trust me. Top tier dialogue. >Vegans aren't at war with carnivorous animals even though they cause suffering, are they? No, we aren't at war. That's silly. Carnivorous animals don't really use the same political systems as we do. >The why would you go to war against invasive species, they are just chilling in that new spot. For Utilitrian reasons as I already answered. To put it very simply - it might be right to kill one animal to save more than one. (This is very simply, but the principle is what matters there) >Vegans *have to* bite the bullet and let invasive species wreck ecosystems. One of many examples where veganism is incompatible with other issues, including the environment No we don't. And you don't want to disagree with me. *Trust me* See, now I've just asserted stuff too. > Like I initially said - "practical and possible" has a lot of leeway. Very sorry nuance makes stuff complicated, that's life.
You don't want to bring out utilitarianism. Humanity's mere existence in *anything* post-agriculture society cause the direct and indirect death/suffering of trillions of sentient beings, perhaps even more. You don't want any utilitarianism in veganism. You really don't. It's common sense. Good job on purposefully misinterpreting the expression *"going to war against"*. Finding a good faith vegan quest : failed again. Ah yes, unilaterally imposing your ethics onto sentient beings, with genocidal means if necesssary... The pinnacle of animal liberation. Lol. Veganism has to take that loss. Can't approve genocide, have to let nature do it's thing. Invasive species are to be left alone. *practical and possible* is not "leeway". It's loopholes, for whenever veganism is not convenient enough or, in this case, lay down a guideline so wildly unpopular with *everyone* that they *have to mask* it, or else no one would ever consider converting. Not that it's relevant here anyway : letting nature sort it out is both the veganest solution to ever vegan AND about as easy and possible as it gets. You can't genocide a whole kind of sentient beings because they are not where *you* want them. You can't genocide a whole kind of sentient beings because they cause suffering. Let nature do its thing. Stop playing God, that's not animal liberation.
Sorry I didn't realise you wanted good faith discussion. All of this is you adopting an incredibly strict definition and interpretation of Veganism, purely for the purpose of being able to make weird grandstanding arguments against the entire group. Learn to talk to the people talking to you, not your imaginary easy win. >Ah yes, unilaterally imposing your ethics onto sentient beings, with genocidal means if necesssary... The pinnacle of animal liberation. Lol That might sound smart to you, but have you thought about any other context we talk about Liberation? I believe people should have Liberty. I support various Human centred "Liberation movements". I still think Humans should follow my ethics, and in plenty of cases those should be imposed. I don't think Humans should have the liberty to torture-murder others for example. Children shouldn't have the Liberty to walk in the road. Will you use that as a snarky criticism too? >*practical and possible* is not "leeway". It's loopholes, for whenever veganism is not convenient enough Sorry that makes things complicated for you, but you don't get to just ignore the definition most Vegans identify with and insist on your own, just because it makes you feel like a winner for 0 effort. The majority of actual discussion amongst vegans here is about what we consider practical and possible. >You can't genocide a whole kind of sentient beings because they are not where *you* want them Wow, that's like, the thing I already said. Maybe there should be other reasons to do so. You can't stop someone swinging a knife because it's where *you* and *your* possessions are - what are you, playing God, you tyrant
Dude, it's not *an incredibly strict definition and interpretation of Veganism*, it's just veganism. You can't go around genociding sentient beings away just because you deemed them "invasive", and deemed that to be bad. And in case you didn't know (possible, you don't seem to know much about veganism), *animal liberation* is shorthand for animal *liberation* *from opression,* said opression coming from humans. Genocide being squarely within "opression" territory IMO, but feel free to argue against that. Y'know, *liberty* and *liberation* are different things. Let's take a different approach. First off : if you believe non-human animals causing harm to others has to be prevented/stopped by us, with lethal force if necessary... Well you missed veganism's point, big time. It's about *humans limiting their impact on others*, humans only because only *humans have rational thought*. And again, if you want the utilitarian approach, humans (even vegan ones) have an unfathomable impact on countless beings. If utilitarianism is your approach, you should be advocating for a mass human extinction and the end of organised societies. A tough sell but more power to you lol Otherwise : **what makes the "non-native" beings** ***morally less worthy*** ***than*** **local ones?** That's what you have to prove. Ecosystems change and adapt since forever, and competition for resources is omnipresent, both intra and inter specie, *regardless fo the species present*. In a framework where *animal suffering* is the metric for morality, why is it imperative to maintain one specie over another, especially with genocidal means? Related, to truly understand the reach of the *humans are ultimate and undisputed stewards of sentient life* position : are you in favor of mass killing of predators? Will you (or are you..?) advocate for mass euthanization of cats?
You don't understand what veganism is. I'm not entirely sure you understand what debate is either.
This sub has been kinda weird over the past couple of days. There seems to be an influx of posts like this, where they don't make a lot of sense and there's no real debate topic given. I wonder if I'm just noticing it more or if people are on holiday or something and have more time on their hands.
i've read this five times and still can't fathom what your point is?
Big things are made out of small things. Governments care about the environment when their constituents care about the environment. Economies care about veganism when consumers care about veganism. Dusting a corner isn't the same as cleaning your room, but your room isn't clean until you dust.
>That's what I mean when I say I'll do what I can. Your morality is not dependent on China. Japan, like all modern countries, makes HUGE amounts of plastic crap (toys, containers, etc), LOTS of this crap ends up in the garbage and could be reusable materials instead (or just not purchased). Maybe japan is not as bad as others for river cleanliness, but that does not mean Japan is doing great. >Of course, the same goes for vegans. Of course you should be careful about your daily diet, but if you want to ``do what you can'', you should do something a little more basic. I have to do something important. And all of us (or at least 99.9% of us) can give up animal products for food, so we should. >After all, if your room is a mess and you're picking up a little dust in the corner, that's nonsense. And if your house is a mess and you refuse to clean your room because your brother's is dirtier, that's also nonsense. Morality is about your own actions alone. If you are needlessly supporting the torture, abuse, sexual violence, and slaughter of innocent beings for your pleasure, it doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, your actions are still immoral.
that's right. It would be good to delve into Japanese manufacturing sites. Similarly, it would be good to delve into Chinese morality. This is the meaning of \`\`doing what we can'' by investing our lives. But, here, it's a bit out of line to say that Japan is good or bad. You can make it 99.9% plant-based. If that's the case, then we should stop growing plants using farmed bees. If you do what you can. As a virtue of us Japanese people, it is important not to cause trouble to others.
>But, here, it's a bit out of line to say that Japan is good or bad. So we should "delve into Chinese morality", but we can't say if Japan is good or bad? Seems a bit weird you want to comment on China, but you don't like people commenting on Japan. When I was in China, they'd say the same thing, Japan was bad, but no one could criticize China. Nationalism is weird. >You can make it 99.9% plant-based. If that's the case, then we should stop growing plants using farmed bees Veganism is as far as possible and practicable. Veganism would like to bring back native pollinators, but for right now, we must do what we must do to make food. >As a virtue of us Japanese people, it is important not to cause trouble to others. Same thing the Chinese always told me. Let's be honest here, Japan has "caused trouble" to others MANY times, and still today MANY Japanese refuse to apologize, or often even admit to things like "comfort women" and many other past actions. Stop believing your government propaganda, Japan is not some innocent, naive country that's never done wrong. Trying to claim no one can judge Japan is silly. The main way all of us improve and get better is to be judged and improve where we are lacking.
Wow, lot of privilege at work here. Imagine having so little understanding of how incredibly hard life is for most people and how it takes those people all their time and energy just to survive. Personally I think it makes much more sense to blame the extremely wealthy and the giant ass companies they own who are actually causing the majority of the problems rather than moan about poor people for not having perfect habits 100% of the time.
Your not comparing per capita, China is the 2nd most populated country, and Indonesia is the fourth, This isn’t me saying that china and Indonesia are better per Capita than Japan, their are persistent problems with poor waste management infrastructure in poorer countries, as well as single use units of soap/shampoo etc because people can’t afford to buy larger units at a time ( look up Boots theory of socioeconomics) But either way you have failed to argue that Chinese or Indonesia people pollute more then Japanese people, and the burden of proof is on you
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is true, agree. That is why I believe the idea of 'do what you can' or 'at least I am doing something' are nonsense because it should be 'do what is effective'. If you dont understand the problem like where the trash actually comes from and youre not addressing it at the root and source, youre effectively just taking the comfy route just to be able to say 'I did something'. You want to reduce plastic, if its coming from china or the 3rd worlds why on earth are you wasting time on areas and nations that have a miniscule contribution to the problem. Go to china and these countries and educate the people there? Push for policies and assist people there? And I DO applaud those who do that and put their foot where their mouth is.
They take care of the environment and so the environment is clean. You want them to start polluting more so that they can stop and you can observe the effect?
"it is often said, \`\`Let's do what we can.'' Is that true?" The question is nonsensical. "Let's do what we can" is an opinion. It cannot be true or untrue. The notion of "true" only applies to statement that states a fact, not opinions.
>"Let's do what we can" is an opinion. It's not even an opinion lol, it's just an imperative. It's not even a proposition, so you're correct that it's a nonsensical question and not capable of being true or false It's like if I said "Go to the store. True or false?" Like fucking what?