Vegetarianism

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart So, you are saying we have instincts against insincts???

We have conflicting instincts.

We should seek to accept and grant that they own themselves based on The Equal Consideration of Interests.

Why should we grant equal consideration of interests to animals?

I feel it is rooted in the man made constructs of morals based on our desire to avoid pain and suffering.

Killing animals does not cause us pain and suffering.

See source quote above.

Well, I disagree with that quote. The fact that can override an instinct does not mean that we do not have them. Are you saying that humans do not have an instinct to protect our young?

"Instincts" used as support IS NO support -- for the term or how they can be quantified is not fixed and therefore their application in this argument cannot be justified with any certainty.

All moral beliefs are rooted in instinct. I can establish this quite thoroughly, not by quoting experts, but by tracing the chain of cause and effect for any moral belief you hold.

Would you care to experiment with this? Lettuce start with infanticide. We both agree it is immoral. Why do you feel it is wrong?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We have conflicting instincts.

Perhaps so, but not how you are putting the use of them forth. We most certainly do have complex behavioural patterns, but then that is not the same.

Why should we grant equal consideration of interests to animals?

Because suffering is a bad state.

Killing animals does not cause us pain and suffering.

You are basing your argument on prejudice for one`s group. Prejudice when applied to sentient beings causes suffering. Citizens of New York killing citizens of Chicago does not cause citizens of New York pain. Empathy is a trait which is extendable across the species barrier from us to them.

Excerpt on human Instinct from Wikipedia:
Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behaviour present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This notion is present in many introductory textbooks (Sociology: An Introduction, Ian Robertson, Worth Publishers, 1989), but is still hotly debated.

Well, I disagree with that quote. The fact that [we] can override an instinct does not mean that we do not have them.

Now, we are just going to get into a circle. I will just tell you I agree with the quote and tell you to read it again -- particularly the part where it says behavior that can be overridden is not instinct.

Like I said, this point becomes moot because experts in the field are hotly divided on it. You can keep bringing it up and I can keep throwing it back and we can each waste more time typing on an indecisive issue. I don`t mind. You choose. But, I surely am not goint to cede a point which is hotly debated by experts.

Are you saying that humans do not have an instinct to protect our young?

We have a strong interest and desire in doing so, but there are many instances of mothers and fathers acting in ways that do not protect their young to their best ability. That can cover a wide range of things. Just a smoking mother or father who knows or has heard that a possible risk of second hand smoke could be seen as acting counter to protection if they do not keep them away from second hand smoke. Just one example that can cover a larg population. However, don`t forget the many cases of direct physical abuse cases etc...

How is this related to your "instinct to believe that murder is wrong" and how is that and this new question related to the topic issue of "killing animals is wrong"?

I am not an expert on "instinct." I do know that the issue is not decided by experts and some say pure instincts cannot be overridden. Human behaviour influenced by personal history and environment however, can be. But, human behaviour is not instinct. A baby`s natural sucking motions of its mouth is instinctive, just as surely as a koala baby crawling into its mother`s pouch and attatching to its tete is.

All moral beliefs are rooted in instinct. I can establish this quite thoroughly, not by quoting experts, but by tracing the chain of cause and effect for any moral belief you hold. Would you care to experiment with this? Lettuce start with infanticide. We both agree it is immoral. Why do you feel it is wrong?

Because I reason I do not own its life and should not exercise ownership over him/her.

But, besides my answer, you would have been wise to make a better choice for an example. Merely because infanticide has been done quite often in our history up to the present speaks to the point that instinct does not prevent it from happening in the paradigm of "protecting our children" which you outlined above. In fact we need laws against it to pervert/prevent the behaviour of people resorting to it for thier own personal reasons devoid of instinct.

[belverron]

I don't know whether you failed to follow my reasoning or simply refuse to accept it. At its most basic form it is this:

1) Logic stems from passion, whether sympathy, fear, lust, &c. The most important of these being sympathy (I've been reading Adam Smith. Forgive me.) From my point of view, we have not transcended our passions.

2) I can sympathize more with humans than with animals. Though their suffering is painful to see, they do not seem unique to me and therefore lack value.

3) I don't give a shit what the animal thinks or feels; this is my life and it's all about me.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart Because suffering is a bad state.

But death is not suffering. So, why should we include death in equal consideration of interest when it comes to animals?

Empathy is a trait which is extendable across the species barrier from us to them.

Empathy would drive me to avoid the suffering of animals, but why would it drive me to avoid their deaths?

Like I said, this point becomes moot because experts in the field are hotly divided on it. You can keep bringing it up and I can keep throwing it back and we can each waste more time typing on an indecisive issue. I don`t mind. You choose. But, I surely am not goint to cede a point which is hotly debated by experts.

Hmmm...


from dictionary.com

Quote by: dictionary.com in‧stinct1  /ˈɪnstɪŋkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-stingkt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species. 2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency. 3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money. 4. natural intuitive power. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L instinctus prompting, instigation, enthusiasm, equiv. to *insting(uere) (in- in-2 + *sting(u)ere presumably, to prick; see distinct) + -tus suffix of v. action]

I am using definitions 1 and 2, when I say that all morals are rooted in instinct.

Would it work better for you if I said that all morals are rooted in inborn tendencies and drives?

Because I reason I do not own its life and should not exercise ownership over him/her.

Why do you feel you should not exercise ownership over an infant (or over anyone)?

[Kamehameha34]

StrongHearts:

First of all, you ignored my post.

Secondly, just because an animal would do things at its own discretion if it controlled its life does not mean that it should be its life to control. If it behaved according to the interests of humans, and humans only in its own right, there would ne no NEED for ownership of the animal.

Thirdly, animals do not suffer in harvestation, so, unless you have a non-subjective argument for why we should value animal life as much as you do, I'd like to hear it.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 StrongHearts: First of all, you ignored my post.

Kamehameha, show a little patience. I did not ignore you post. As you can see I have several opponants at the moment. I am simply behind in getting to posts. I have addressed many points of yours, though admittedly not all due to spreading my time around with other posters on animal issues here on Volconvo.

You, too, seem to have ignored some of the rebuttles and comments I put directly to you? You, however, do not have the excuse on this thread of being engaged with others in having to address their comments.

Secondly, just because an animal would do things at its own discretion if it controlled its life does not mean that it should be its life to control. If it behaved according to the interests of humans, and humans only in its own right, there would ne no NEED for ownership of the animal.

Kamehameha, we can all play "if" games. No animals are born and will not be born naturally behaving to the interests and whims of man -- not even a dog, which does so only due to socialization and conditioning.

Thirdly, animals do not suffer in harvestation, so, unless you have a non-subjective argument for why we should value animal life as much as you do, I'd like to hear it.

Then why do many people cringe when they see animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses? People don`t take their 6 year old kids for fun on weekend outings to whatch the hogs get slaughtered, do they? They do take them to orchards for fun that charge families by the basket to pick their own oranges, apples, dig potatos etc...

Funny how some in modern times, seeking to distance themselves from the suffering involved in slaughter now refer to it as "harvesting" -- as if it is merely the same as picking fruit.

When did this term come into vogue? I challenge you to find it widely used before the start of the modern animal rights campaign. You may find it began with Japanese using it to describe the slaughtering of whales from the oceans to equate it with the practices of other countries' agrarian systems in a means to blunt criticisms of killing these animals. Other countries and industries surely could see how "harvest" did not carry the baggage that the word "slaughter" brought to mind and therefore began usingn it, too. Oh, how clever and misleading we homosapiens can be. First get the slaugherhouses far from the cities out of site, then work on changing the vocabulary from one of the bloody association of "slaughter" to the neat and bloodless act of "picking oranges, apples, potatos, etc..." from trees or the ground. Nice spin. Perhaps Clinton would say,

"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Orwell would be proud of our inroads in Doublespeak, wouldn`t he? We do his horrendous view of the future and its dark ways of communication honor. I try to be honest in my words and call things as they are, not as I would like others to believe them to be with changing the sublime truth of them and resorting to their narrower meanings out of special interests. Why don`t you? Why have you adopted and rejected the traditional word? It is in fact a "slaughter" -- that is why they are honestly known by the public as "slaughterhouses" or even meatpacking houses. They surely do not call them "silos" as in "grain silos" or "stores" (i.e. as in storage and collection facilities for fruit such as "fruit stores").

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Segregation is wrong. Exploitation which causes pain and suffering is wrong. Sorry, but you do not define the limits of what are acceptable arguments. You are resorting to some declarations of your own which you seem to be against below.

Segregation is wrong for any human being. Animals are different in every way. They are similar in some ways, but where does one need to see other animals the same way we see humans? I see animals as lower than humans. Killing animals for food is not wrong or immoral. Morality exists with only our species as human beings. Animals should and are treated lower than humans, therefore, no issue of morality.

I feel that animals should not have to endure the torture many of them do, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't wrong for one to kill an animal for food.

You talk about how humans literally have no instinct, then how do you explain self preservation? You talk about only hurting animals when you have to, I understand vegetarianism is not perfect, after all, that's what you said. But, if I was being attacked by a dog for example, I'd try my best to stop that attack, even if it means killing it. Just because a plant cannot attack a person the way animals can, does that separate the two? I know we are seperate from all other animals and plants. Why should we treat other animals any different? You say plants don't suffer, but how do you really know that? Is it because they don't scream? Is it the way they reproduce? Is it their color? Explain to me how a plant is any different of a life form than an animal and please provide some notation from a reputable source if you could.:rolleyes:

And talking further about plants, provide detailed information about how their life, once taken, is less value than that of an animals, once taken. There is no validity in your statements thus far, and you are going around these issues, instead of providing proof.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kamehameha, show a little patience. I did not ignore you post. As you can see I have several opponants at the moment. I am simply behind in getting to posts. I have addressed many points of yours, though admittedly not all due to spreading my time around with other posters on animal issues here on Volconvo.

And you have time to the post that tells you that you didn't respond to my post, but not the post itself?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin You, too, seem to have ignored some of the rebuttles and comments I put directly to you? You, however, do not have the excuse on this thread of being engaged with others in having to address their comments.

Show me.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kamehameha, we can all play "if" games. No animals are born and will not be born naturally behaving to the interests and whims of man -- not even a dog, which does so only due to socialization and conditioning.

That was my point. The fact that that is true is irrelevant to the issue of ownership of their life.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Then why do many people cringe when they see animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses? People don`t take their 6 year old kids for fun on weekend outings to whatch the hogs get slaughtered, do they? They do take them to orchards for fun that charge families by the basket to pick their own oranges, apples, dig potatos etc...

People don't take their family to the municipal garbage facility as an outing, either, but does that mean having one is immoral?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Funny how some in modern times, seeking to distance themselves from the suffering involved in slaughter now refer to it as "harvesting" -- as if it is merely the same as picking fruit.

There is NO suffering involved with death. Stop using prejudicial terminology.

When did this term come into vogue? I challenge you to find it widely used before the start of the modern animal rights campaign. You may find it began with Japanese using it to describe the slaughtering of whales from the oceans to equate it with the practices of other countries' agrarian systems in a means to blunt criticisms of killing these animals. Other countries and industries surely could see how "harvest" did not carry the baggage that the word "slaughter" brought to mind and therefore began usingn it, too. Oh, how clever and misleading we homosapiens can be. First get the slaugherhouses far from the cities out of site, then work on changing the vocabulary from one of the bloody association of "slaughter" to the neat and bloodless act of "picking oranges, apples, potatos, etc..." from trees or the ground. Nice spin. Perhaps Clinton would say, [/quote]

Slaughter denotes pain, which isn't present in the process. Using uephemisms should only matter if it actually changes the meaning of the term.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Orwell would be proud of our inroads in Doublespeak, wouldn`t he? We do his horrendous view of the future and its dark ways of communication honor. I try to be honest in my words and call things as they are, not as I would like others to believe them to be with changing the sublime truth of them and resorting to their narrower meanings out of special interests. Why don`t you? Why have you adopted and rejected the traditional word? It is in fact a "slaughter" -- that is why they are honestly known by the public as "slaughterhouses" or even meatpacking houses. They surely do not call them "silos" as in "grain silos" or "stores" (i.e. as in storage and collection facilities for fruit such as "fruit stores").

My accurate use of the word harvest shouldn't matter to you unless you are confused by it.

Also, stop getting caught up in my use of the word harvest and acknowledge the fact that it is ILLEGAL to cause animal cruelty

[Captain Chaos]

StrongHeart has multiple opponents in this debate, with only him on his side. So, we should show a little patience with him. Having been in that situation, I can tell you it is difficult to respond to every one quickly.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Segregation is wrong for any human being.

It is not that "segregation" and "exploitation" are wrong in and of themselves -- it is the reasoning that they are premised on (i.e. might makes right). Reason and logic are not prejudicial -- unless perverted to be made to be so..

Animals are different in every way.

In "every way"? What do you mean by that? You are sounding like a reductionist.

Animals, like us have a central nervous system. They have nerve endings and the ability to suffer and feel pain -- perhaps even more acutely than we. They often cringe in fear when afraid, at times urinating due to fear just as we do. Many have complex social groups and family relations. Some nurture their young for long periods as we do and mourn the loss of their fellow animals. They often engage in play and deception. I don`t think you have read or studied any works or excerpts by ethologists on the matter as seen by your blanket statement.

They are similar in some ways, but where does one need to see other animals the same way we see humans?

I am not sure if you meant to say "where" or "why" at the point which is underlined. In any event, it is not about the "same way" for surely the similarities they share with us range in degree of capability and in some cases that could mean their suffering could be worse -- it is about "equal consideration of interests."

Humans, too, amongst ourselves display differences in degree.

I see animals as lower than humans. Killing animals for food is not wrong or immoral. Morality exists with only our species as human beings. Animals should and are treated lower than humans, therefore, no issue of morality.

Is it immoral to be cruel? Or perhaps eventhough one is cruel they can still be moral. Is it right to be cruel?

moral -- 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

You claim morals can "only exist with our species as humans," then why are their anti-cruelty laws to protect animals if their is no issue of right or wrong behaviour towards them? Reality shows us that society definitely takes in moral considerations of right and wrong behaviour in how we treat them. The only question is moving the line of accepted behaviour, and that is what The Animal Liberation movement is about. Because it is moveable our acceptable treatment of them is not stuck -- just as our acceptable treatment of our fellow human beings, too, are not stuck. The pendulum can always swing back or forth.

I feel that animals should not have to endure the torture many of them do, ...

Why do you feel such if there are no moral considerations due to them -- which you stated above are only for humans? I have no moral considerations for a rock, hence if a child wants to chip away at it for his enjoyment I will let him go at it all afternoon. Most people, though, if they see a child chipping away at a kitten with a chissel would feel this child is acting without morals (i.e. not displaying right behaviour).

... but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't wrong for one to kill an animal for food.

Your reason is based on "we do to them what we do because we can" -- it is the old "might makes right" arguement. The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is the more moral one for it does not rest on "might" and it is the principle that puts forth the action of less violence, pain and suffering. It is wrong to cause that when there is no need to do so.

You talk about how humans literally have no instinct, then how do you explain self preservation?

Cite where I said humans have no instinct. Once again I think you are taking liberties in saying what you said I said. What I did roughly say is that "human instincts" are hotly debated amongst scholars in the field.

You say plants don't suffer, but how do you really know that?

It has not been proven or even close to proven that they do. I am under no obligation to prove a negative. Are you asserting that they do? If so, then bring forth the positive evidence for such.

Is it because they don't scream? Is it the way they reproduce? Is it their color?

Pain and suffering in a form as to how we can relate to it is known through our senses which are relayed by a central nervous system. Plants lack a central nervous system, nerve cells, a brain -- all those points that cause us to sense pain. Animal Rights, just as human rights are focused on relieving pain which we can relate to.

In addition, vegetarians never say that all death is avoidable through their lifestyle. Even if plants did experience pain as animals (which has not been proven), eating them directly would still cause LESS suffering than producing flesh, because it takes more plant life to create value added to a product that would feed less end users than if it went directly to the end users in plant form.

Explain to me how a plant is any different of a life form than an animal and please provide some notation from a reputable source if you could.

Kubedawg, do you really mean I have to provide a link to you to tell you that plants do not have a central nervous system or are incapable of locamotion, birthing young, etc... Those are all self evident as surely as stating the sky has clouds.

If you are going to take the position that they are the same, then you are asserting a positive. Prove your positive. Their differences are self evident.

And talking further about plants, provide detailed information about how their life, once taken, is less value than that of an animals, once taken. There is no validity in your statements thus far, and you are going around these issues, instead of providing proof.

You are the one bringing up the assertion, or alluding to it that plants are not different from animals and experience pain or suffering, so you provide that positive which you are alluding to.

But to humor you, show me anti-cruelty laws on the book directed at protecting plants from cruel acts. A quick look and you can find numerouls anti-cruelty laws in place for animals. Society doesn`t seem to backing your plant = animal ruse at discrediting the interests for and in lessening exploitation of animals.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos StrongHeart has multiple opponents in this debate, with only him on his side. So, we should show a little patience with him. Having been in that situation, I can tell you it is difficult to respond to every one quickly.

Thank you on that, CC.

For those of you engaged with me in this thread and others (mostly animal related ones), please also note that in addition to debating this side of the argument alone (which I don`t mind doing), I also am on the other side of the world, meaning if you see me on when you are on, it is most probably after midnight here (or 12 to 13 hours different from the U.S). In fact, as I wrote my last post it was after 1 a.m.

Please take that into consideration.

If after 3 or 4 days there is no reply from me it is probably because I have been inactive. If you think I forgot to reply to you, just remind me and I will try to do so. I have not avoided any person here and the length of my posts show you that I try to be thorough in answering your questions and comments.

CoffeeSaint on the "Meet Your Meat" thread pointed out rather gently that I had not answered his post and he did so without derision or being snide. As soon as he pointed it out I tried to answer it as soon as I could. That meant some others had to wait, and Kamehameha inparticular didn`t like having to do that. I still have Tivodon(sp?) waiting for a reply for a post he posted to me about a week ago.

A heads up, though, about 10 days from now I will be off-line for about 3 weeks. Moving into a new house and things will be hectic for a period until we get everything setttled down. Thought I should mention it, lest the impatient amongst you get ancy and feel I have disengaged.

Thanks for the courtesy of posting your thought on the issue of patience, CaptainChaos. I appreciate it.

Those who can`t show that same degree of courtesy for patience will be the ones who have their posts sent to the back and replied to last in order. It may not matter to those who don`t care about a reply, but for those who seek engagement and would like a reply to their post from a hardcore animal rightist, should at least allow me some leeway in time in getting back to you -- that is if you want the best well thought out answer I can offer. It isn`t too often when one gets a far leaning representative, all the way on the far side of the spectrum of a particular subgroup of society, so if one values debate with those ideas uncorrupted, one should be pleased to come across a person without a compromised position for the purpose of debate.

For example, if I wanted to debate the policies of G. Bush, I would prefer to debate someone of his inner circle or an extreme Bush supporter rather than just a person who casually supports him or his party. Or if I wanted to debate against steroid use, I would prefer to debate against a steroid user, rather than someone who just supports steroid use. The extreme is where the real views on the far end of the spectrum spread out to the rest of society and gradually dissipates. A debate rep on the far end is what gives you the insight into that particular groups pure beliefs on the matter. I value that thought on seeking debate from those persons, so I would offer them enough courtesy knowing that if they do make themselves available for debate, they would be in a minority in a public forum and therefore if they are fielding questions from all comers, they are surely to get behind. I am a good example of exactly that and Captain Chaos has pointed that out to some degree.

And to let you know, I am on the far end of Animal Rights and will at some time open other threads for debate on issues of vivisection, zoos, circuses, bullfighting/bloodsports, etc... I do not come to animal issues casually and have studied quite intensively on them with extensive reading. If you want to hear those arguments and engage in debate with someone on those points from the far end of the spectrum, then I would be a good choice for that.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The problem with most vegetarian's arguments, including the ones presented on this forum, is that they assume that omnivores such as myself care about these arguments.

Then why bother following this thread`s argument, looking in on it, or even posting for that matter? I have to wonder if your questions below are rhetorical in nature.

1) "Eating meat is murder, animals suffer, the process/handling/farming is wrong." And? So? I used to live in a farming community, and I have been to many butcher shops. I also have hunted and fished. None of that bothers me.

The fact that it doesn`t bother you, why is that relative to the argument that exploiting animals that lead to suffering or death is wrong? Whether something is right or wrong is less dependent upon the person viewing or performing the act and more dependent upon the target of that act.

A person killing another person for their own reasons may not be bothered by their actions -- does that then make it right? According to your reasoning it does.

Everything living eventually dies.

Yes, but why should a life be taken when it is not necessary?

There are many omnivorous and carnivorous species in this world that kill other animals. Why should we be different?

Because we ARE different. We have the ability to choose or to control ourselves. Animals are captive to their passions.

2) "Eating meat is unhealthy" No, actually it isn't. Or, yes it is. You cannot say that eating one particular type of diet over another is better or worse, because the devil is in the details. I submit that the vegetarian who eats nothing but celery and tofu is just as if not more unhealthy than the person who eats nothing but burgers.

Do you know what a "reductionist" is? Your argument/example is one of "reductionism."

Can you show any case studies where a vegetarian or even a flesh eater eats only one or two different foods? Reality is the better state to ground an argument in.

Diet is such an incredibly personal and varied decision that you really can't make an argument for one broad sweeping thing over another.

Sure you can. I am in the process of doing that and it is done all the time by vegetarians and animal rightists. An argument is simply an attempt at persuasion -- independent of success or failure in terms of a debate partner or the audience moving on the spectrum. But, it is not too hard to find a vegetarian who will admit to being exposed to arguments that evenually made them change their diets. Why do you think that is not the case with a number of people who have become vegetarians?

Something being personal or not is irrelevant to making arguments. Religion, too, is such a personal decision but yet Thomas Paine argued quite effectively against it. Many cite him for their decision to becoming Free Thinkers. So, again: Why do you think personal decisions cannot be argued against for change?

3) Eating meat is an "energy sink"[indent]And? So? Human existance is an energy sink, should we all kill ourselves?

Only if one is neurotic or a reductionist on the point.

I`ll save the rest of your post to answer later.

[Kamehameha34]

Do you think that we have to accept your values of animal life as a medium for the argument?

The bottom line is: Animals suffer minimally, if at all in the harvesting process, because otherwise would be against the law, and all that's left is how you value the animal's life, and what you value it as.

We don't have to accept your subjective stance just because you are currently the only one on your side.

And no, I would not covet a debate with a far leaning opponent if said opponent conveyed that it was somehow a privilege to debate with him/her.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It has not been proven or even close to proven that they do. I am under no obligation to prove a negative. Are you asserting that they do? If so, then bring forth the positive evidence for such.

I am under no obligation to bring forth negative evidence as you have not provided positive evidence then. You can disprove a positive and a negative equally. You are obviously asserting they don't suffer.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kubedawg, do you really mean I have to provide a link to you to tell you that plants do not have a central nervous system or are incapable of locamotion, birthing young, etc... Those are all self evident as surely as stating the sky has clouds.

I'm not saying they feel the exact same way any animal does, but that doesn't mean it doesn't suffer in a very different way either.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin You are the one bringing up the assertion, or alluding to it that plants are not different from animals and experience pain or suffering, so you provide that positive which you are alluding to.

We can keep going back and forth like this, but it won't really solve anything unless one of us provides our positive or negative as they are equally important. Just because something is probable, even if there is evidence, does not make something true and vice versa, if something is improbable, with lack of evidence, it does not make it false. You were the first to state plants, when consumed by an animal, then the animal, being rpoduced, is less life than that of the animal in which it came. Let's look at the plant and the animal as a whole. The animal, whatever kind, eats whole plants, except for the roots generally. The human eats a part of the animal, certainly not as much as the human would eat a plant as if it were in it's whole form, like a carrot. You're not goin to just eat a small amount of that carrot, because you're hungry, the same can be said that you're not going to eat a whole cow, because you're not that hungry... Positives and negatives once again meet in the middle, equally.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin But to humor you, show me anti-cruelty laws on the book directed at protecting plants from cruel acts. A quick look and you can find numerouls anti-cruelty laws in place for animals. Society doesn`t seem to backing your plant = animal ruse at discrediting the interests for and in lessening exploitation of animals.

Ok show me where a plant screams when it's tore from the roots in which it came. And then show me footage where an animal is being tortured. It is evident you can see the suffering of the animal, but not the plant. But then again, it cannot speak. But does that rule out the possibility of it suffering once it has been chopped up? It obviously has life, we've both admitted this, but how much life does it have comparing it to an anmial? It's unknown, so stop assuming that hurting animals less justifiable than hurting a plant. Just like creationism and evolution. We know evolution exist today, but before we first existed, we have no clue. All the studies can be done in the world, and all the probability and testing and experimenting, but because we were not able to be there @ that time in history, it is unknown, therefore, it cannot be factual to say evolution is how we were created, just as much as we can disprove creationism. This is just a different type of proving something does or does not happen the way we think it does. Your intentions are good, I understand that animals should not be harmed before being killed, but what about the plants?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg I am under no obligation to bring forth negative evidence as you have not provided positive evidence then.

Where have I told you to prove a negative? You have brought up the point that plants feel pain or are alluding to it. If you don`t believe they do, then why bring it up? Since you allude to they do feel pain, then that is a positive and that is what you should set out to do -- to prove your assertion of a positive.

You can disprove a positive and a negative equally. You are obviously asserting they don't suffer.