3 ms·
No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right. > there's an issue in the system. But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so
by TomSwirly 6y ago
No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right.
> there's an issue in the system.
But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything.
You say, "The government should ban this!" and the government says, "People are buying and eating this, so in a Democratic system we can't ban this!"
You slough off responsibility on them - they slough it off on you - you all convince yourselves you have no possibility at all.
Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it?
I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault."
- gambiting 6y ago>>No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right. Wait, are you replying to the right comment? >>Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it? Yes, I have. Have you? >>But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything. Again, I feel like you're replying to the wrong comment. I feel like I live in a country with a very strong regulatory framework and things like fishing are treated very seriously with strong quotas on what can be caught not to overfish, and canned fish has to be clearly labeled where it came from and how it was caught. So I'm not sure which part of what I said comes across as apathetic to you. >>I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault." I'll definitely say that it's the fault of the agencies tasked with protecting the flora and fauna that they are responsible for, not the consumers for eating tuna.