Vegetarianism

[Lostinlife]

Do enjoy wasting your breath saying I didn't answer the questions? Take a look at post 2010 if you will.

With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable felt pain plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states.

They possess complex and specialized sense organs, they possess complex and specialized structures for processing information and for centrally orchestrating appropriate behaviors in accordance with mental representations, integrations, and reorganizations of that information. The proper attribution of felt pain in these animals is well justified. It is not for plants, by any stretch of the imagination.

You can babble on about how plants "suffer", but the fact is that at its core is extremely ridiculous.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife In theory, plants could possess a mental state like pain, but if, and only if, there were a requisite complexity of organized plant tissue that could serve to instantiate the higher order mental states of consciousness and felt pain. There is no morphological evidence that such a complexity of tissue exists in plants. Plants lack the specialized structures required for emergence of mental states. This is not to say that they cannot exhibit complex reactions, but we are simply over-interpreting such reactions if we designate them as "felt pain". The absurdity (and often disingenuity) of the plant-pain promoters can be easily exposed by asking them the following two questions: 1) Do you agree that animals like dogs and cats should receive pain-killing drugs prior to surgery? 2) Do you believe that plants should receive pain-killing drugs prior to pruning? Animal Rights FAQ: Section Five - Questions # 43-46, The Plant Argument

#1 - Yes

#2 - Yes, however I highly doubt anybody has any knowlege of how to create a pain killer that relates to the genetic makeup of a plant in such a way that it would function similar to what we use..... simply because nobody ever bothered to look into it

And in theory?

It's already been proven that plants respond to various stimuli, light, heat, sound, etc.

Plant Response to Stimuli

^ Quick break down on the various effects stimuli have on a plant. Studies have shown that certain sounds in one greenhouse being played have an effect on their growth, compared to a different sound in another greenhouse.

It is not beyond logic to think they too also have their own form of pain they register..... and just because their structures are not as complex as our own doesn't make them anymore irrelevant... plants have existed and evolved for a heck of a lot longer then us humans and every other animal species on this planet....

the funny thing about the vegan mentality is that it still basis it's logic on the old thinking that we are somehow better or greater then everything else on this planet, much like what religions use.

Regardless, you are still trying to trivialize one life over another life, in much of the same way as meat lovers justify their reasons for eating meat...... a life is still a life and in order to continue to live, another must be extinguished..... to pick and choose which ones are expendable over another because of emotions, rather then logic, is hypocritical on a different level.

Because I am an omnivore, if I eat both meat and veggie, I am not on the same level of hypocracy, as I am only acting within my species' nature..... it's when you try and justify one over the other as a means of total source of food is when things become ridiculous.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Haha I enjoy your use of adjetives. Actually Praxis I was raised vegetarian, and never had much to enforce the idea until I became much older. I saw many videos of the horror that is done to animals, which naturally triggers an emotional response because I too know what pain and suffering is, although at their level I can only fathom it . Really, its hard to make an opinion without watching what actually takes part, and without doing so makes it easier to accept or ignore.

I've seen it all.... I have at times done it myself.... be that hunting, fishing, or on my grandparents' old farm..... I know it's not pretty, but needs to be done none the less.... just as killing plants isn't all that pretty either.

I can easily put myself in the shoes of any animal, just as I can with any plant. Go ahead.... put yourself in the shoes of a plant that is ripped in half and seperated from the ground you call home..... slowly bleeding out and drying up.... starving of water and decent sunlight.

Then being diced up alive and then being cooked to death...... then of course, death.

They have awareness of their life and the requirement/nature to protect it..... whatever methods they have to signal to themselves that they are being damanged and killed, those alarm bells would be ringing through your mind until you died.

An animal's death would seem a heck of a lot quicker and more humane then one would originally think.

I know that sometimes animals need to die or be killed for food and resources.... and if I need to do it.... I will.... but only when I need to, nothing more. Same goes for plants.

Isn't this connected to how we react when we see humans suffering? Its perfectcally conceivable that many would figure out that humans are not the only animals who deserve mercy from pain when unessacery.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.... but we also have a natural justification to desire protection of our own species, just like any other animal or plant species out there does...... very few other plants or animals give consideration to other species not of their own..... because of our level of intelligence, some humans feel we should corrupt our sympathy of our own species to equate every other species to the same level as we treat ours.

This will only cause more problems then solve.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife I responded to the questions Praxis, are you ignoring posts 2009, and 2010 on purpose? So your actually saying a line shouldn't be drawn? Ejaculation should be considered mass murder?!

Nope, because Semen is a part of our bodies and who we are.... we own it and I'll spray as much of my stuff to waste as I see fit.

I'll have to track back to see which posts those were to see if I did ignore your post.

What the hell are you talking about?! In Factory farms, fur farms, reseach labs. and entertainment, nonhuman animals are treated like objects and not the living suffering beings they really are.

Did I already not state my views on this? Funny, I thought I did.... more then twice.

But I see you still never addressed my questions.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Do enjoy wasting your breath saying I didn't answer the questions? Take a look at post 2010 if you will. With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable felt pain plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. They possess complex and specialized sense organs, they possess complex and specialized structures for processing information and for centrally orchestrating appropriate behaviors in accordance with mental representations, integrations, and reorganizations of that information. The proper attribution of felt pain in these animals is well justified. It is not for plants, by any stretch of the imagination. You can babble on about how plants "suffer", but the fact is that at its core is extremely ridiculous.

On the contrary, all you have done was place some emotional regard for a typical electrical signal to the brain to justify how one should be protected and another should die without regard.

You think that because one living species on this planet doesn't have the same genetic makeup as we do, and that our ignorant scientists have nothing to related to toward plants to determine how distant they truly are to us like animals (ie: similar organs and makeup) that they automatically must not feel something similar to pain or suffering, or other signals to tell them they are damaged like we do..... that regardless that they respond to various types of stimuli, thus aware..... that they are born, live and die..... that it's ok to wipe them out and their existence is simply trivial...... because you can't emotionally relate to them like you can a little puppy.

Oh well....

[Clementine]

Sure factory farms are the majority, but you don't have to buy from them. I don't. There are farmer's markets everywhere now, so there really isn't an excuse. There is a whole foods and trader joe's in just about every state. You can mail order organic meat from your computer if you want.

If enough people stop buying the nasty meat, they will stop producing it.

[Nono]

Quite right. There's no excuse except ignorance, apathy, cost and so on. I figure most people just don't want to know.

You may be at the wrong end of Vermont, but here's a restaurant where you not only know you're being served healthy food, but you also know that it hasn't been carted thousands of miles on some gunk-spewing truck.
And you know that the farmer got a decent price.

The Farmers Diner - Locally Produced in Vermont! Our Farmers and Producers.

[Clementine]

I have eaten at the Farmer's diner many times. It is fabulous. There are many restaurants in VT that serve local foods. I am sure many other states do the same thing. We buy all our meat from a local farmer, Winding brook farm. He also sells his meat to local restaurants, for example; Michael"s on the Hill in Stowe. We went there Sunday evening for a b-day celebration and the food was great. A bit on the pricy end, but worth it for a chef owned restaurant. Not only did they have local meat, but they served local cheeses, green, etc.
It's out there if you look for it. If I don't know where the meat come from, I don't eat it and I certainly don't serve it to my children.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Clementine Sure factory farms are the majority, but you don't have to buy from them. I don't. There are farmer's markets everywhere now, so there really isn't an excuse. There is a whole foods and trader joe's in just about every state. You can mail order organic meat from your computer if you want. If enough people stop buying the nasty meat, they will stop producing it.

Agreed.

There are several "farmer's markets" within a 10-15 min drive from where I live. You tend to actually save more money from them since most of it is local and you don't have to cover much for transportation/import costs.

If people also stopped eating at MacDonald's, Wendy's, KFC, A&W, etc. and rather ate at home or bought locally, you'd greatly reduce the amount of these slaughterhouses there are in the world.

Besides.... none of that fast food crap actually tastes as good as home cooked..... well..... my home cooked anyways.......

.... that's right.... I'm not only tall, handsome and charming.... I can also cook damn good too.

I am....



The most interesting man in the world.....

And when I drink beer.... it's Clancy's Amber Ale.

Eck, that picture makes me look 30 years older....

[Lostinlife]

It is not beyond logic to think they too also have their own form of pain they register..... and just because their structures are not as complex as our own doesn't make them anymore irrelevant... plants have existed and evolved for a heck of a lot longer then us humans and every other animal species on this planet....

My God Praxis! You offer far to much speculation and little or no fact.

*rubs temples*

Lets observe who the real fanatic is. You provide SUBJECTIVE (The Cut plant "bleeds", repairs itself, therefore it must feel pain and be aware of it), rather than objective or scientific evidence as to how and why plants would feel pain.

Do you believe you know more than a scientist or biologist because of something you feel? There is simply no evidence that a plant has a system or sort of brain allowing it to consciously experience a mental state of "felt pain" on any level.

Also, how would it benefit a plant in feeling pain? Pain (and pleasure) is useful to animals because they are able to use concepts such as trial and error. When the animal experiences discomforture or pain that may very well lead to its death, being mobile, the animal attempts to escape said pain. If it manages to escape, then the animal can reference that pain for future situations.

An immoblie organism, like a plant, has nothing to benefit from pain. Plants simply have no evolutionary need to feel pain, and nature does not gratuitously create such complex capacities as that of feeling pain unless there is some benefit for the organism's survival. Yet because you "think" they might feel pain, it would be hypocritcal to kill them.

Lets go little futher into it, just to be sure.

No published book or paper in a scientific journal has been cited as indeed making this claim that "plants feel pain". There is interesting data suggesting that plants react to local tissue damage and even emit signaling molecules serving to stimulate
chemical defenses of nearby plants.

But how is this relevant to the claim that plants feel and suffer from pain? Where are the replicated experiments and peer-reviewed citations for this putative fact? There are none.

Let us, for the sake of argument, consider the form of logic employed by
the plant-pain promoters:

premise 1: Plants are responsive to "sense" impressions.
premise 2: As defined in the dictionary, anything
responsive to sense impressions is sentient.
conclusion 1: Plants are sentient.
premise 3: Sentient beings are conscious of sense impressions.
conclusion 2: Plants are conscious of sense impressions.
premise 4: To be conscious of a noxious stimuli is unpleasant.
conclusion 3: Noxious stimuli to plants are unpleasant, i.e., painful.

There is a major logical sleight-of-hand here. The meaning of the term "sentient" changes between premise 2 ("responsive to sense impressions") and premise 3 ("conscious of sense impressions"). Thus, equivocation on the usage of "sentient" is used to bootleg the false conclusion 3. There is also an equivocation on the meaning of "painful" ("unpleasant" versus the commonly understood meaning).

#2 - Yes, however I highly doubt anybody has any knowlege of how to create a pain killer that relates to the genetic makeup of a plant in such a way that it would function similar to what we use..... simply because nobody ever bothered to look into it

Yes! Perhaps we shall use a morphine that travels from the roots to the non-existent nerve receptors! Oh right its not THAT kind of pain, its ANOTHER pain...

You actually expect people to believe that walking on grass can be compared to the trampling of a dog. I'll stick to logic and fact rather than your subjective outlook, thank you.

[Lostinlife]

Nope, because Semen is a part of our bodies and who we are.... we own it and I'll spray as much of my stuff to waste as I see fit.

Funny, thats how people defend our dominion over animals... "We own them and are superior to them, so we can do anything we want with them"

The philosophy of Animal Rights is generally regarded as encompassing only sentient creatures. Plants are just one of many non-sentient, living creatures. To remain consistent, granting moral status to plants would lead one to grant it to all life. It may be thought that a philosophy encompassing all life would be best, but granting moral status to all living creatures leads to rather implausible views.

For example, concern for life would lead one to oppose the distribution of spermicides, even to overpopulated Third world countries. The morality of any sexual intercourse could be questioned as well, since thousands of sperm cells die in each act. Also, the sheer variety of life forms creates difficulties; for example, arguments have been made to show that some computer programs--such as computer viruses--may well be called alive. Should one grant them moral status?

There are questions even in the case of plants. The use of weed-killers in a garden would need defending. And if killing plants is wrong, why isn't merely damaging them in some other way also wrong? Is trimming hedgerows wrong?

The problems raised above are not attempts to discourage efforts to develop an ethics of the environment. They simply point out that according moral status to all living creatures is fraught with difficulties. Nevertheless, some people do, indeed, argue that the taking of life should be minimized where possible; this constitutes a kind of moral status for life. Interestingly, such a view, far from undermining the AR view, actually supports it.

If we can bring ourselves to momentarily assume (falsely) that plants feel pain, then we can easily argue that by eliminating animal farming, we reduce the total pain inflicted on plants. Livestock must be raised on a diet of plant foods, so consumption of animals is actually a once-removed consumption of plants. The twist, of course, is that passing plants through animals is a very inefficient process; losses of up to 80-90 percent are typical. Thus, it could be argued that, if one's concern is for killing, per se, then the vegetarian diet is preferable (at least for today's predominant feedlot paradigm).

Now will you continue to waste our time with the plant argument, or shall we move on?

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Michael1695 Vegans can try to make me feel guilty all they want, I will just ignore them and continue to enjoy meat. I still don't see their justification in their mind set that animals are not to eat. Carnivorous animals certainly don't feel this way since they eat other animals themselves.

That we can do something does not mean that it is right to do so. We have a lot of power over other creatures, but with great powers come even greater responsibilities, as any parent will testify.

Humans are at the top of the food chain because they CHOOSE to eat nonhuman animals. Carnivores, however have no choice, but to eat meat. There is thus a suggestion of tautology in the questioner's position. If we chose not to eat animals, we would not be at the top of the food chain.

Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious idea of a pinnacle of evolution, let us accept that humans are ranked at the top on a scale of intelligence.

Does this give us the right to do as we please with animals, simply on account of their being less brainy? If we say yes, we open a Pandora's box of problems for ourselves. Does this mean that more intelligent humans can also exploit less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we all be slaves to the Einsteins of the world)?

Considering a different trait, can the physically superior abuse the weak? Only a
morally callous person would agree with this general principle.

And by the way, what about equal rights for bacteria? How are they any different from animals, how come animal rights activists aren't worried when we kill bacteria to dissinfect things,

There is simply no way fo us to protect bacteria rights, seeing as they live at a microscope scale. It can also be argued that bacteria are a threat to our survival so therefore, there is nothing immoral in spraying disinfectant.

or swat a fly?

There really isn't a reason to kill a living thing for no reason, especially when it is not harming you.

Insects are small invertebrate animals with very primitive nervous systems.

Singer quotes three criteria for deciding if an organism has the
capacity to suffer from pain: 1) there are behavioral indications, 2) there is an appropriate nervous system, and 3) there is an evolutionary usefulness for the experience of pain. These criteria seem to satisfied for insects, if only in a primitive way.

Some would draw a line at some level of complexity of the nervous system, e.g., only animals capable of operant conditioning need be enfranchised. Others may quarrel with this line and place it elsewhere. Some may postulate a scale of life with an ascending capacity to feel pain and suffer. They might also mark a cut-off on the scale, below which rights are not actively asserted. Is the cut-off above insects and the lower invertebrates? Or should there be no cut-off?

This is one of the issues still being actively debated in the AR community. People who strive to live without cruelty will attempt to push the line back as far as possible, giving the benefit of the doubt where there is doubt. Certainly, one can avoid unnecessary cruelty to insects.

As far as insecticides used in agriculture...

David Cowles-Hamar writes: "For thousands of years, peoples all over the
world have used farming methods based on natural ecosystems where potential pest populations are self-regulating. These ideas are now being explored in organic farming and permaculture." Michael W. Fox writes: "Integrated pest management and better conservation of wilderness areas around crop lands in order to provide natural predators for crop pests are more ecologically sensible alternatives to the continuous use of pesticides."

The point is that there are effective alternatives to the agrichemical treadmill. In addition to the agricultural methods described above, many pest problems can be prevented, certainly the most effective approach. For example, some major pest threats are the result of accidental or intentional human introduction of animals into a habitat. We need to be more careful in this regard. Another example is the use of rodenticides. More effective and less harmful to the environment would be an approach that relies on maintenance of clean conditions, plugging of entry holes, and nonlethal trapping followed by release into the wild.

The effects of the intensive use of agrichemicals on the environment are very serious. It results in nation-wide ground water pollution. It resultsin the deaths of beneficial non-target species. The development of resistant strains requires the use of stronger chemicals with resulting more serious effects on the environment. Agrichemicals are generally more highly concentrated in animal products than in vegetables. It is thus
enlightened self-interest to eschew animal consumption! Organic farming and related methods eschew agrichemicals in favor of natural, sustainable methods.

[ironeagle]

I just can't belive this debate is still going on. Seriously, who cares vegitarianism is just for people who want attention.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: ironeagle I just can't belive this debate is still going on. Seriously, who cares vegitarianism is just for people who want attention.

Yes your exactly right! 400 million people are simply trying to get a response from you... Give me a break, so you don't understand something... maybe you should try.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife My God Praxis! You offer far to much speculation and little or no fact. *rubs temples* Lets observe who the real fanatic is. You provide SUBJECTIVE (The Cut plant "bleeds", repairs itself, therefore it must feel pain and be aware of it), rather than objective or scientific evidence as to how and why plants would feel pain. Do you believe you know more than a scientist or biologist because of something you feel? There is simply no evidence that a plant has a system or sort of brain allowing it to consciously experience a mental state of "felt pain" on any level. Also, how would it benefit a plant in feeling pain? Pain (and pleasure) is useful to animals because they are able to use concepts such as trial and error. When the animal experiences discomforture or pain that may very well lead to its death, being mobile, the animal attempts to escape said pain. If it manages to escape, then the animal can reference that pain for future situations. An immoblie organism, like a plant, has nothing to benefit from pain. Plants simply have no evolutionary need to feel pain, and nature does not gratuitously create such complex capacities as that of feeling pain unless there is some benefit for the organism's survival. Yet because you "think" they might feel pain, it would be hypocritcal to kill them.

Just to stop there for a second. you expressing that they are immobile just goes to show how much you really know about plants and express a similar mentality as those who promote eating meat and use trivial nit picking to suit your argument.

What I am expressing isn't subjective and what I have said thus far is correct.

Do I know more then a scientist or biologist?

Sometimes I actually do. suprise!

Science is about as limited as religion in it's thinking, restricted in how it approaches things, takes way too long to understand one minor little thing and tends to be completely wrong later down the road when new information the ignored comes back to haunt them.

I've already expressed and explained a number of things which science eventually figured out a few months or years down the road.

Believe it or not, but it's not always scientists or biologists who come up with everything. science is a leech of a religion. rather then coming up with their own ideas of how things work, they take other people's ideas, hypothesis & theories.... many of these people know what they believe is true due to first hand experience.... yet nobody believes them until science comes along with its golden oh-holy hand, does a few tests. and somehow wow!!! It's scientifically proven, therefore it's true.

Even though months, years, decades or even centuries before, someone knew that the earth wasn't flat. that the sun didn't revolve around the earth, long before it could be scientifically proven.

The only real difference between religion and science is that science has the luxury not to be set completely in it's beliefs and allows room to correct their mistakes. But their own set limits of understanding will still limit its ability to expand beyond their simplistic and very slow method of understanding.

You can call it foolishness, but even science understands that a plant is aware of it being injured, it is aware that it needs to repair itself, it is aware that it needs defensive abilities to protect itself and it is scientifically proven that they respond to various stimuli.

Yet because science has been too damn slow and lazy to officially figure out just how far that awareness goes, you suddenly shut your mind to the possibilities that what you are killing and eating could have a similar awareness as us and other animals.

You think plants are immobile, only because of your limited understanding of time and your perception of it when it comes to humans and other animals.

Lets go little futher into it, just to be sure. No published book or paper in a scientific journal has been cited as indeed making this claim that "plants feel pain". There is interesting data suggesting that plants react to local tissue damage and even emit signaling molecules serving to stimulate chemical defenses of nearby plants.

I never said that they indeed feel pain in the sense we feel pain, via nervous system.... but their reactions and their ability to heal themselves similar to how we do is does raise the question on if it is possible.

Just because science has been too slow to actually bother to test for this and quickly limited their understanding of pain and awareness simply because they only know how to look for it in animal species and don't give a crap about plants, doesn't mean they are suddenly correct.

Science has been wrong many many times in the past, it will continue to get things wrong in the future.

When mamals or in paticular, us humans get injured, cut or break a bone, our bodies begin to heal themselves.... we do not consciously focus on healing, we don't have to concentrate on healing, we just heal, we scab over, we distribute more white blood cells.

We could be completely brain dead and in a comma and this would still take place. yet beyond our own consciousness, there is a level of awareness that one is injured and that repairs are required.

Pain and suffering is just a mere by product of this reaction. it's a mere chemical response, just like any other animal or plant.....it's all chemical responses.... but once again, you apply an emotional response to one form of suffering and not to another, afterall, emotion is also a chemical response.

This is where they hypocracy begins. you pick and choose what best suits your own position and believe so much in it, that you feel it's a right to try and force or sway others to believe what you believe. regardless if you are really right or wrong.

But how is this relevant to the claim that plants feel and suffer from pain? Where are the replicated experiments and peer-reviewed citations for this putative fact? There are none.

Really?

You sure didn't look hard enough did you?

Scientists Prove Plants Feel Pain, Vegans Face Starvation
"Scientists Prove Plants Feel Pain, Vegans Face Starvation"

DALLAS--Research scientists at Baylor Medical Center have proven that plants, including vegetables, feel pain when subjected to trauma such as being yanked out of the ground, peeled, cooked, and eaten. "Veggies and plants initiate a massive hormone and chemical barrage internally when they suffer any kind of injury," says professor Barry Lindzer. "This response is akin to the nerve response and endorphin release when an animal is injured. We cannot ignore the similarities.".......

Mythbusters prove plants feel pain?
David's Right Way of Thinking: Mythbusters prove plants feel pain?

Members of PETP (People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants) should be happy with this week's episode of Mythbusters. They hooked up a machine to a plant then tortured the plant. The machine showed the plant reacting. Even just thinkng of torturing the plant caused a reaction. The episode was based on Cleve Backster work.....

^ I actually remember seeing that episode..... quite interesting actually.

How can a plant feel pain without a nervous system?
WikiAnswers - How can a plant feel pain without a nervous system

Plant Brain: Each root apex harbours a unit of nervous system of plants. The number of root apices in the plant body is high and all brain-units are interconnected via vascular strands (plant nerves) with their polarly-transported auxin (plant neurotransmitter), to form a serial (parallel) nervous system of plants. The computational and informational capacity of this nervous system based on interconnected parallel units is predicted to be higher than that of the diffuse nervous system of lower animals, or the central nervous system of higher animals/humans. Taken from the study at: Neurobiological View of Plants and their Body Plan

Geez... just a quick goggle provides a bunch of info..... next time put a little effort into the topic before posting so you don't seem so silly.

Let us, for the sake of argument, consider the form of logic employed by the plant-pain promoters: premise 1: Plants are responsive to "sense" impressions. premise 2: As defined in the dictionary, anything responsive to sense impressions is sentient. conclusion 1: Plants are sentient. premise 3: Sentient beings are conscious of sense impressions. conclusion 2: Plants are conscious of sense impressions. premise 4: To be conscious of a noxious stimuli is unpleasant. conclusion 3: Noxious stimuli to plants are unpleasant, i.e., painful. There is a major logical sleight-of-hand here. The meaning of the term "sentient" changes between premise 2 ("responsive to sense impressions") and premise 3 ("conscious of sense impressions"). Thus, equivocation on the usage of "sentient" is used to bootleg the false conclusion 3. There is also an equivocation on the meaning of "painful" ("unpleasant" versus the commonly understood meaning). Yes! Perhaps we shall use a morphine that travels from the roots to the non-existent nerve receptors! Oh right its not THAT kind of pain, its ANOTHER pain... You actually expect people to believe that walking on grass can be compared to the trampling of a dog. I'll stick to logic and fact rather than your subjective outlook, thank you.

lol.... you sure are going through a lot of trouble to try and defend your baseless and ignorant position..... got a problem with the concept that you may have spent so many years making living things suffer without a second thought? It's ok, you're not alone.

Subjective? Indeed..... do some research next time before putting mouth in gear.

So sad.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Funny, thats how people defend our dominion over animals... "We own them and are superior to them, so we can do anything we want with them"

Really? Speak for yourself, cuz I don't.... animals don't come out of my arse, my nose, mouth or penis.... my semen is about as complex and just as related to my body as blood cells.... it's like trying to argue that pollen of a plant isn't the plant's..... that's just being ridiculous.

The philosophy of Animal Rights is generally regarded as encompassing only sentient creatures. Plants are just one of many non-sentient, living creatures. To remain consistent, granting moral status to plants would lead one to grant it to all life. It may be thought that a philosophy encompassing all life would be best, but granting moral status to all living creatures leads to rather implausible views.

It does, doesn't it? Now you see the problem I am trying to present.

Right now a days people think plants are on the same level of existence as us.... yet not too long ago people thought the same thing about animals.... that they don't have a soul... they they don't feel pain either. Yet somehow through time, that all gradually changed.

Then what happens if the same thing occurs to plant life?

1st thing that would happen is that all vegans will probably commit suicide.... so much the better.

2ndly, perhaps people will finally realize our involvement and our place on the planet and that

3rd.... in order for a life to continue, one must be extinguished... human, animal or plant.

Animals eat plants and other animals, including humans.

Plants can eat other plants and can also eat other living creatures.

Humans can eat plants and we have always eaten other animals and sometimes other humans..... yet apparently the cycle of similarity doesn't fit for us?

That we are somehow mistaken that we're omnivores?

For example, concern for life would lead one to oppose the distribution of spermicides, even to overpopulated Third world countries. The morality of any sexual intercourse could be questioned as well, since thousands of sperm cells die in each act. Also, the sheer variety of life forms creates difficulties; for example, arguments have been made to show that some computer programs--such as computer viruses--may well be called alive. Should one grant them moral status? There are questions even in the case of plants. The use of weed-killers in a garden would need defending. And if killing plants is wrong, why isn't merely damaging them in some other way also wrong? Is trimming hedgerows wrong? The problems raised above are not attempts to discourage efforts to develop an ethics of the environment. They simply point out that according moral status to all living creatures is fraught with difficulties. Nevertheless, some people do, indeed, argue that the taking of life should be minimized where possible; this constitutes a kind of moral status for life. Interestingly, such a view, far from undermining the AR view, actually supports it. If we can bring ourselves to momentarily assume (falsely) that plants feel pain, then we can easily argue that by eliminating animal farming, we reduce the total pain inflicted on plants. Livestock must be raised on a diet of plant foods, so consumption of animals is actually a once-removed consumption of plants. The twist, of course, is that passing plants through animals is a very inefficient process; losses of up to 80-90 percent are typical. Thus, it could be argued that, if one's concern is for killing, per se, then the vegetarian diet is preferable (at least for today's predominant feedlot paradigm). Now will you continue to waste our time with the plant argument, or shall we move on?

No, I think I'll continue to waste your time.

But you did touch base on what I was leaning towards.... which is the complete idiocy of trying to protect one thing over another or to give everything the same amount of rights as a human.... once you start with one thing, you either have to do it for all, or else someone will eventually come along and force the situation and then it will be done for all regardless.

And since I have already provided a few examples of tests done to see if plants can register pain or similar..... since you and others could have easily searched for it and saved me the time of spoon feeding you guys information, it is not I who is wasting the time.

Vegans are hypocrites.... it's as simple as that.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Yes your exactly right! 400 million people are simply trying to get a response from you... Give me a break, so you don't understand something... maybe you should try.

Some wise advice that perhaps you should follow yourself.

[Lostinlife]

You think plants are immobile, only because of your limited understanding of time and your perception of it when it comes to humans and other animals.

Actually I know...

immobile:

1 : incapable of being moved : [COLOR=#0000ff]fixed[/COLOR]
2 : not moving : [COLOR=#0000ff]motionless[/COLOR] <keep the patient immobile>

How does this not describe plants?!


Lacking mobility, having pain sensors would have no advantage. Moreover, feeling pain in more complex animals is useful for learning which is used to modify actions in the long-term. Something plants are unable to do.


Nature does not provide elaborate machinery without function.

Your failure to relize this just expresses your own ignorance.

This is where they hypocracy begins. you pick and choose what best suits your own position and believe so much in it, that you feel it's a right to try and force or sway others to believe what you believe. regardless if you are really right or wrong.

Yes I know that animals can greatly suffer as we can, as far as plants your not very convincing.

Really? You sure didn't look hard enough did you? Scientists Prove Plants Feel Pain, Vegans Face Starvation "Scientists Prove Plants Feel Pain, Vegans Face Starvation" Mythbusters prove plants feel pain? David's Right Way of Thinking: Mythbusters prove plants feel pain? ^ I actually remember seeing that episode..... quite interesting actually. How can a plant feel pain without a nervous system? WikiAnswers - How can a plant feel pain without a nervous system Geez... just a quick goggle provides a bunch of info..... next time put a little effort into the topic before posting so you don't seem so silly.

So you provide some random web page with no refrences, a blog and wikianswers!? If this was widely regarded as truth you'd think you would come up with more than that.

lol.... you sure are going through a lot of trouble to try and defend your baseless and ignorant position..... got a problem with the concept that you may have spent so many years making living things suffer without a second thought? It's ok, you're not alone. Subjective? Indeed..... do some research next time before putting mouth in gear.

This is the problem though... somehow you get from they are RESPONSIVE to sense impressions to they are AWARE of sense impressions.

Do Invertebrates Feel Pain? - Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage”3.

The subjective, emotional component of pain is considered its important aspect, not the activation of pain sensors (nociceptors) in the body. The IASP makes this clear “Activity induced in the nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause”3.

In other words, the only animals capable of feeling pain are those that can feel fear, anxiety, distress and terror, similar to what humans feel when we receive noxious stimuli.

Almost all organisms, including bacteria, will attempt to escape from an aversive stimulus4. Because bacteria are not thought to be capable of feeling pain (e.g. they lack a nervous system), possessing an escape response to an aversive stimulus is not enough evidence to demonstrate that a species is capable of feeling pain. To infer that a non-human vertebrate (mammals, birds and reptiles) is in pain, researchers rely on the vocalizations and physiological responses (e.g. the release of stress hormones) that an animal produces when faced with an aversive stimulus2.

Because these responses are similar to our own when we are in pain, researchers argue that, by analogy, animals showing these responses are also in pain2. This technique cannot be used with invertebrates. Invertebrate physiology is different from our own1. The invertebrates diverged from that of vertebrates hundreds of millions of years ago1.

*have to go for now

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Actually I know... immobile: 1 : incapable of being moved : [COLOR=#0000ff]fixed[/COLOR] 2 : not moving : [COLOR=#0000ff]motionless[/COLOR] <keep the patient immobile> How does this not describe plants?!

Wow, for somebody who's so up in arms about getting people to kill and eat plants, you sure don't know much about them do you?

Ignorance is bliss I suppose:



Rapid plant movement
Rapid plant movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rapid plant movement encompasses movement in plant structures occurring over a very short period of time, usually under one second. For example, the Venus Flytrap closes its trap in about 100 milliseconds. The Dogwood Bunchberry's flower opens its petals and fires pollen in less than 0.5 milliseconds. The record is currently held by the White Mulberry tree, with flower movement taking 25 μs, moving petals to velocities in excess of half the speed of sound- near the theoretical physical limits for movements in plants. These rapid plant movements differ from the more common, but much slower "growth-movements" of plants, called tropisms. Charles Darwin in 1880 published his last work before his death, The Power of Movement in Plants.

Plants move... plants react.... sometimes faster then a human ever could.... and sometimes slower then a human can optically register.

Lacking mobility, having pain sensors would have no advantage. Moreover, feeling pain in more complex animals is useful for learning which is used to modify actions in the long-term. Something plants are unable to do.

They move, and it has been proven that they can feel.

Nature does not provide elaborate machinery without function.

Maybe there is a function beyond your own understanding or that hasn't been figured out yet.

If you limit your understanding of the world around you with only what you already know, you'll never know it all.

Your failure to relize this just expresses your own ignorance.

If you say so.... You're the self proclaimed expert afterall and what you says goes..... frig, you still think plants are immobile.

Yes I know that animals can greatly suffer as we can, as far as plants your not very convincing.

That's simply because you don't like the idea that I might be right and refuse to actually look into the matter on your own, enjoying your own blissful ignorance to the true world around you.

So you provide some random web page with no refrences, a blog and wikianswers!? If this was widely regarded as truth you'd think you would come up with more than that.

Don't fk'n waste my time debating where the information came from and avoiding the information.... Does it make sense? Is there anything there you can refute?

Firg, I hate Mythbusters, but apparently they do everything all scientific-like, which you were bitching and complaining about.... there's video of them doing the tests out there that are not hard to find.... yet you once again ignore it.

All you do is avoid any information given to you and trivialize..... all the while... wtf do you provide? More emotional dribble over the cute widdle cuddiwy am'nimals and your holier then thou attitude that you're doing something great for the planet.

Get over yourself

I could provide you information galore it won't make a difference to someone like you anyways, since you are so full of your vegan trip, you can't even accept, let alone acknowledge:

#1 - Plants are alive
#2 - Plants are aware
#3 - Plants use protection
#4 - Plants move
#5 - Plants register damage
#6 - Plants have nerves

Here..... yet again, I'll waste more of my damn time spoon feeding you information because you're too lazy or ignorant to find it yourself:

Swiss ethicists uphold 'dignity' of flowers
Swiss ethicists uphold 'dignity' of flowers

Here's one back from 1992:

Plants Found to Send Nerve-Like Messages
Plants Found to Send Nerve-Like Messages - The New York Times

PLANTS, unlike animals, have no nerves, so scientists have been jolted by the discovery this month that the tomato plant uses an electric signal to alert its defense system against grazing caterpillars. A team of researchers from England and New Zealand reported in the Nov. 5 issue of Nature that when a leaf on a tomato seedling is chewed by insects it sends out electrical warning signals, alerting the rest of the plant to the danger. As undamaged leaves receive the signal, they begin producing defensive chemicals that make them difficult to digest. "It's a very exciting result," said Dr. Keith Roberts, head of the cell biology department at the John Innes Institute in England and author of the commentary published along with the article. "It's really a conceptual breakthrough to think plants use electrical signals in the same way animals use them in nerve cells. It brings plants a little bit closer to animals." Dr. David Wildon, a plant physiologist at the University of East Anglia, England, and one of the authors of the new study, said: "Everyone can see now that if you find a system in animals and you look for it in plants, it turns up. The more we look, the more similarities there are."

Oh but let me guess.... those arn't good enough for you either, am I right?

This is the problem though... somehow you get from they are RESPONSIVE to sense impressions to they are AWARE of sense impressions. Do Invertebrates Feel Pain? - Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage”3. The subjective, emotional component of pain is considered its important aspect, not the activation of pain sensors (nociceptors) in the body. The IASP makes this clear “Activity induced in the nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause”3. In other words, the only animals capable of feeling pain are those that can feel fear, anxiety, distress and terror, similar to what humans feel when we receive noxious stimuli. Almost all organisms, including bacteria, will attempt to escape from an aversive stimulus4. Because bacteria are not thought to be capable of feeling pain (e.g. they lack a nervous system), possessing an escape response to an aversive stimulus is not enough evidence to demonstrate that a species is capable of feeling pain. To infer that a non-human vertebrate (mammals, birds and reptiles) is in pain, researchers rely on the vocalizations and physiological responses (e.g. the release of stress hormones) that an animal produces when faced with an aversive stimulus2. Because these responses are similar to our own when we are in pain, researchers argue that, by analogy, animals showing these responses are also in pain2. This technique cannot be used with invertebrates. Invertebrate physiology is different from our own1. The invertebrates diverged from that of vertebrates hundreds of millions of years ago1. *have to go for now

So because there are certain living creatures on the planet that don't register "Pain" the exact way we humans and perhaps some animals register "Pain" it's perfectly fine to do whatever we wish to them and kill them off by the trillions as we see fit?

Regardless that whatever they use to protect themselves and has similar traits that are almost exactly like registering what we understand as pain..... you think it's perfectly fine to pick and choose what falls under your own personal blanket of protection?

Ok.... I pick and choose not to kill and eat other humans, but everything else I choose is fair game.

Such is life..... and if some vegan decides they want to impose their own screwed up morals on my life and tell me what to do...... I'll be eating them next time just to make a point of their own hypocracy, which still stands in my view.

[minorwork]

Don't worry how deep to plant a bulb. If the plant doesn't like the depth you plant it, then it will adjust itself to the depth that suits it. Amazing Nature. 'Smart' flower bulbs pull themselves to deeper ground You're welcome, Praxius. Bummer, Lostinlife.

Which is the lesser of two evils to eat? Kirpal Singh required 6 months as a vegan before initiating the novice into Shabd Yoga. Eating of both animal and plants was taking a life. Plants being the least objectionable source of nutrition.