Rhetoric 101: when you ascribe a negative trait to a group you disagree with, the tacit assumption is that you do not share that trait.
“These people are hypocrites about their [not universal] moral stance! Unlike me.”
That last part’s not stated but is implied.
Also we’re not saying we’re better, we’re suggesting more effective ways to contribute than some meaningless diet that won’t change anything given the scope
Disparaging people for making small changes because they are small is not the helpful criticism you seem to think it is.
1 Like
Frostbinder is a treasure to this Forum, he hates on everything and Everyone. it is his Job to tell us we suck.
So how about we instead try to do something about THAT? Devil knows how many issues our overpopulation’s causing.
Blood Sport! lets do GTA V arena wars!
The world’s not overpopulated - the problem of resources is one of distribution, not supply.
The only way we do something about that is by dismantling capitalism : )
3 Likes
The only other way for me to be social is Discord and unlike this thread, that is not always active in a conversation.
1 Like
We are literally at the point where we’re no longer going to allow new houses to be built on empty plots of land in Belgium.
WE’RE
FULL!
We have over 7 billion people on this planet, darnit, have you no limits?
The US, NZ and Australia too.
you mean the moral stance you change every given moment to accommodate your need? you do realise that in my platitude i actually state that i am also in the wrong but accept it.
1 Like
There are enough resources (food etc) on this planet to feed about two and a half times that number. Distribution, not supply.
you mean the moral stance you change every given moment to accommodate your need? you do realise that in my platitude i actually state that i am also in the wrong but accept it.
You don’t know what my stance is, so please don’t try and tell me what it is.
1 Like
For an actual peeve, rather than arguing this crud.
“You don’t pay their sub, you can’t tell them what to do.” no, I don’t pay their sub, but yes I can tell them that they’re wrong and what to do. They don’t have to listen, but my point will remain.
2 Likes
I’ll do you one better!
Vegans who are all high and mighty for not eating animal stuff, but they are perfectly fine with taking the food that animals eat, thus taking more food from the animals they apparently care for!
You want to eat, stupid vegan? EAT A DAMN ROCK!
1 Like
woops my mistake should be in the me form.
Where the hell am I from then… WHO AM I?!
There’s no immediate way of dealing with overpopulation that isn’t surrounded by ethical issues, sadly. The long-term solution that the Western world currently going with is based on educating others and encouraging others to be more responsible and self-conscious, with veganism being a byproduct of this.
I’d even argue that the people who become vegans for sustainability reasons are also less likely to contribute to overpopulation by having a large number of children.
1 Like
Sometimes I really hate ethics… but we can start doing what China did and restrict the amount of children per couple, twins and the like being an exception ofcourse.
The way to cut down on birth rates worldwide is to invest large amounts into foreign aid. When a country becomes more developed, its birth rate declines massively.
I’m talking from a drop of ~7-9 children to 1-2 children per household here.
4 Likes
How about China and India? They’re… relatively developed, aren’t they? But they’re the biggest problem.