Vegetarianism

[kubedawg]

No, you provide the proof. YOU brought up that plants have no feelings, so YOU provide the proof. I said that plants are living, and I'm sure everyone can attest to that, but you brought it to everyones attention that plants either don't suffer or that plants have less life than animals do. So YOU provide the proof. This was post #143 in this debate that you made.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The "right people" or decision makers will only act once a groundswell of people call for change. Activists don`t have to just target industry leaders and politicians, they have to target their customers and constituents to inform them so that they join the group of voices calling for change. That is not what I asked you in the above post. You said that animals should be killed before being dissasemble. If you say that they should be so, then you obviously feel that it is bad that they are slaughtered the way they are and that that system of disassembling them is horrible. I asked you a question above based on your knowledge of the system and your eating habits. Please go up and give a direct answer to the question posed to you. ... If one accepts that it is impossible to live a life without causing some death or suffering, then one should at least accept that he or she should cause the least amount of death and suffering possible. In that case, it takes more plant life to create value added in the form of beef than what would go directly to consumers. Therefore, less life would be lost without beef production. The net loss of life and suffering is less if one eats plant life. Vegetarianism has never been about perfection. That said, would you please show us a peer accepted research paper published in a well respected journal that conclusively states plants have the ability to suffer? ... I would too if one were threatening my life. Do they threaten your life on a daily basis? FYI, your survival is not dependent upon eating them in this modern world. If you think so and cling to out of date perceptions, do show us data that says your life is dependent upon eating meat in this modern world. ... Testimonials are not verifiable. Since they are not verifiable, they prove nothing and therefore mean nothing in debate. I, too, could come back with "a friend of mine" story and in the end these kinds of stories do little to prove a point -- other than someone is not skilled at debating or making a point. ... Again, testimonials mean little. I don`t deny though that many people are more prone to give special consideration to 'cute' animals rather than the reptilian kind. More flesh eaters are guilty of this than vegetarians -- and even more so than vegetarians who choose their diet based on animal rights.

So, please provide proper documentation supporting your claim that plants do not suffer, or contain less life than that of an animal.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg That really made me laugh. Using the words common sense and probability in the same sentence is an oxymoron. The less you believe something to be true, it becomes a false in your mind, when, in reality, since there is nothing that says a plant CANNOT suffer, the false becomes theory, or should become theory in your mind, but it seems you are so extreme in your views, you are blinded by the common sense of my previous posts.

Prove the positive: Plants can suffer. In the science disciplines, positives are proven. Since the plant kingdom falls within biology, it is part of science. Where is proof for your positive assertion or for what you are putting forth as a counter example -- in this case a red herring. Until it is proven, that is what it remains as -- a red herring.

Where are there anti-cruelty laws on the book to protect plants? Society and its lawmakers see no credible evidence to consider the feelings of plants.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg No, you provide the proof. YOU brought up that plants have no feelings, so YOU provide the proof.

I am under no obligation to provide proof for a negative as it relates to science. I believe on the probabilities of what is likely so and society has deemed that as right and creates its laws and bases its assumptions on that.

I also believe that in all places of the world, no matter where I stand at any spot on the Earth, gravity will hold me -- even though I have not stood on every spot of the Earth. Therefore, I am under no obligation that if someone asserts or alludes to the fact that there might be a spot where gravity would not hold me, therefore that I must then go out and exhaust all possibilities by seeking to stand on every spot of the Earth. I also do not need to accept this persons ludicrous claim which is improbable and accept it equaly with what is most probable.

I said that plants are living, and I'm sure everyone can attest to that, but you brought it to everyones attention that plants either don't suffer or that plants have less life than animals do. So YOU provide the proof. This was post #143 in this debate that you made.

Pain as we know it, in order for it to be sensed needs a brain, central nervous system and nerves. We are talking about "pain" aren`t we, or are you going to redefine pain to make it include the possibility of all that that we do not know -- which is quite a lot in the universe. Man assigns concepts to things so that we can have a reference to live life on and talk clearly as possible to one another without confusion. If "pain" is not as we know it, then it is something other than the pain we know. Animal Rights speaks to pain that we can relate to. In fact, all of society speaks of pain, operates by creating laws against that which causes it -- all in the sense of pain as we know it.

So, please provide proper documentation supporting your claim that plants do not suffer, or contain less life than that of an animal.

If you assert a scientific positive or allude to it, then you are under the burden of obligation to provide proof. See all above.

[kubedawg]

So you agree with the rest of society for GWB to be voted into presidency the 2nd time? If go live your life going by whatever everyone else thinks, you lose sense of who you really are. You become fake, and unoriginal. It's not a ludicris claim if you cannot prove it to be fiction.

Life is all about probabilities, there are too many "ifs" in this world to really put a fact on anything. I'm not trying to prove that plants DON'T have feelings, I'm just trying to throw the POSSIBILITY out there for people to think about so they second guess themselves the next time they eat meat or eat veggies. Because something is positively accepted, like I said before, does not make it true. All evidence found leading people to believe the positive is true, still doesn't make it true.

You could make an infinite number of examples of either side, positive or negative, whether it be gravity, whether we were created or did we evolve, even fashion. Just because 1 person or many persons say it looks cool, does not mean it is. People buy into the stupidest things a lot of the time, and that's what I truely think about vegertarianism.

I'm not here to argue proofs all day because it will be an unfinished battle. We're all here to argue the pros and cons of vegeterianism. Some obvious reasons is to look "cool" or to go with the flow, or because someone, say a nutritionist says it'd be beneficial. Questioning your beliefs does not make you neurotic, it just opens your senses and your natural instincts to make good decisions in your life and the lives of others. I've otfen questioned, "Is there a god, and were we created vs. did we evolve from bacteria?" It is completely normal to question these things, it's normal to question authority, to question anything. Life is a big question. People do things for the wrong reasons, and hell, I've even questioned my reasoning over the reasoning of others, to strengthen my knowledge and understanding about whatever we're discussing. It's a good thing to protect animals from being tortured like they have been, but that's really where the line is drawn. The more in depth one goes into a specific subject after coming up with multiple solutions for whatever problems arise, sometimes you get too worked up about it and say something you don't really mean, or worse, act upon it in a negative way. I'm not trying to sway your decision on if you should stop being a vegetarian, but moreso to find out why, so I can better my understand your thinking, and insert as much of my knowledge into it as possible to stop people from believing something that is not proven. You've obviously got many people on the other side of the fence on this issue, I'm just trying to provide insight as to why we think most people are ignorant on this subject, yet jump right into it, and most of the time, it's for the wrong reasons.

[kubedawg]

Let me also ask you a serious question. If we removed all the acts of violence, this includes suffering, from these animals, would you agree to the killing of animals for human benefit? For us to eat? If all recreational hunting were banned, would you still agree to the killing of animals for our benefit?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Let me also ask you a serious question.

From that, I guess that means all your other questions were not serious, right -- or why even bother to seperate the two comparatively? That is whay I mean by "red herring" -- often said to obfuscate.

If we removed all the acts of violence, this includes suffering, from these animals, would you agree to the killing of animals for human benefit? For us to eat?

Your question seems premised on an oxymoran. How can you remove violence from killing? You mean like letting them die of old age and then eating them?

No, killing or using another animal for human benefit is exploitation and within exploitation there is suffering. When one does not own one`s life to do with it what they wish, to satisfy their natural urges, to have their natural urges not frustrated, the environment for suffering is created. Can you show us any real life setting where from "captive birth to killing" for exploitaton does not result in suffering? Where is the Utopia you are alluding to in your "if" game scenario? It doesn`t exist and is improbable to exist because the business of depriving a being of their ownership by themselves for the benefit of another causes suffering. Suffering is inherant with depriving another of their nature and leading that to exploitation. If it weren`t, then a case for slavery could still be made. After all, I guess there were a few kind slavemasters.

If all recreational hunting were banned, would you still agree to the killing of animals for our benefit?

You mean like in a survival situation where a tribe still lives in the Amazon or Arctic Circle? Are you playing on the anomalies of the world?

[Captain Chaos]

StrongHeart...

Are you driven in your belief by a powerful empathy for the suffering of animals that we exploit?

Put in another way...

Why do you feel that we should extend the concept of self determination to animals - why should we care about that?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos StrongHeart... Are you driven in your belief by a powerful empathy for the suffering of animals that we exploit? Put in another way... Why do you feel that we should extend the concept of self determination to animals - why should we care about that?

Great question, CC. I almost feel bad for answering it now, because I think I am behind in answering one of your earlier posts which I have had earmarked to get back to.

Empathy is one of the things that brought me to examine the plight of animals. I would say that empathy suddenly woke me up to what they were facing on a daily basis and that after looking deeper into it, it became "reason" and a rejection of "might makes right" that now drives my belief that they are not ours to exploit.

I would add, that those in the Animal Welfarist movement are guided by "empathy." When I first become concerned for animals, that could accurately describe me and at that time I was not a vegetarian. But, once I moved further on the spectrum to accepting the reason for animal rights, I could not BUT accept the premise for Animal Rights. Acknowledging that reason calls for AR but still choose to eat animals would make me a hypocrite, or at best inconsistant. I prefer to try and eliminate inconsistancies with action and philosophy and try to stay as consistant as possible in those regards.

AR is not based on empathy (though it grows it membership of people who move on the spectrum from it/Animal Welfarists), but on reason because it speaks to the legal constructs of man -- who have the power to grant rights or deny them. Animal Welfarists after digging deep enough, are shown not to base their opinions on reason, but on emotions of pitying certain animals but ignoring others -- which denies equal reason cutting across the spectrum of treatment. That is why you will find Animal Welfarists stopping to help a cow that maybe was injured by a car, but then that same night going out to eat steak. Of course, an ARist will help the cow, but they won`t dine on one of its relatives later.

I respect reason and logic and that means not perverting it to make it prejudicial. Reason and logic cuts across all issues if it is allowed to remain pure and not permitted to lead to neurotic compulsion.

We should care because suffering is an unpleasant state and the equal consideration of interests tells us, that just as surely as we have a need to satify our urges by not having a force more powerful exerted on us to prevent that, so do animals. When ones needs and urges are violated to the point of frustration by not letting them be performed, suffering is the result.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: STRONGHEART We should care because suffering is an unpleasant state and the equal consideration of interests tells us, that just as surely as we have a need to satify our urges by not having a force more powerful exerted on us to prevent that, so do animals. When ones needs and urges are violated to the point of frustration by not letting them be performed, suffering is the result.

But,

Why should we apply equal consideration of interests to animals?

Also, I am not convinced that death and suffering are the same thing. A cow can live its life, then be killed quickly. If it knows no pain, it has not suffered.

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: Captain Chaos But, Why should we apply equal consideration of interests to animals? Also, I am not convinced that death and suffering are the same thing. A cow can live its life, then be killed quickly. If it knows no pain, it has not suffered. Do all things with love.

Seems to be something incongruous with the your post Captain, is it possible to kill a creature that is flailing & screaming in a desperate attempt to avoid you and...... do it with love?

Like you I find more joy in life by doing things with love. A big part of being vegan is moral integrity, borne of love of all things.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SpideySpirit Seems to be something incongruous with the your post Captain, is it possible to kill a creature that is flailing & screaming in a desperate attempt to avoid you and...... do it with love? Like you I find more joy in life by doing things with love. A big part of being vegan is moral integrity, borne of love of all things.

I would say that would be very difficult - unless one is practicing a love of torture. But, you can kill a creature instantaneously, so that it does not die flailing and screaming.

I had a friend who once worked in a slaughter house. He said it was horrible - that the impact rods they used to strike pigs in the brain did not always kill them instantly, so the pigs would writhe around in pain for a while.

But, if the animal is raised in a happy and healthy environment, then killed instantaneously, not in front of other animals, then it seems little suffering would take place.

I realize this is hypothetical.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It is highly improbable that I would get stopped by a police officer for cruelty to the dandelion or that nearby motorists would view me as cruel or immoral. It is highly probable that if I threw a kitten from a car the opposite would occur.

I am just stating that taking society into consideration is antithetical to your argument, seeing as society, as a whole, does not shy away from meat eating. Just look at the poll results.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It is quite easy to state anything. I do wonder why, though, factory farms and slaughterhouses do not open their facilities up to the public to come and see the processes. I am guessing it would turn people off to their product -- main ingredient: suffering.

I'm all for stopping animal suffering, but I don't need to stop eating meat to do that.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Go back in the thread. I have not brought up the issue of plant pain and suffering. I have merely been addressing those who have.

Don't get so defencive. Who brings up a point is irrelevant. The point of that post was to address that point.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Because I choose to live on probabilities and not be neurotic. Whether you have been specifically proven to have pain as an individual or not, it is most probable that you do feel pain since you are within the animal group that possesses a central nervous system.

Point taken, but why does animal life mean more than plant life? If you eat either, you are extinguishing a life.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kamehameha, see this thread: Here. I`ve quoted you over there to go into a little more detail about your fondness for asserting that proofs for negatives are a correct debate form.

I believe that I have not pursued this argument for more than a post, two, at most. How does that constitute a "fondness" for negative proofs?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Ludicrous assertion. Find some quotes of respected ethologists or experts in animal behaviour to back that up.

Are there not restrictions regarding animal cruelty? I would like to see proof that they DO experience pain. Unbiased proof please, not Peta videos.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin With all available evidence we have now, it is probable tha they do not, and therefore society conducts its actions on that probability. Yes, your counter example is specifically a red herring. Red herrings are often put forth as counter examples. You are a good example of it right here. Experienced debators can tell that.

You are extinguishing a life when you harvest a plant, am I wrong?
You are also claiming that animal harvest is needless, because we can eat plants, instead, on the basis that animal life does constitute life, but plant life doesn't.




I see you using the word "pain" frequently. Let me delve a little further into this subject:

Pain is currently your only objective argument, at least, of the ones I've reviewed.
It is possible to take animal life without pain. Would you be satisfied if I stated that the harvesting process should be painless, regardless of expense?

I would like to hear what you would classify as an ideal world, in terms of federal intervention of the diets of Americans.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos But, Why should we apply equal consideration of interests to animals?

Because reason tells us that suffering is an unpleasant state to be in and might does not make right.

Also, I am not convinced that death and suffering are the same thing. A cow can live its life, then be killed quickly. If it knows no pain, it has not suffered.

Almost anything is possible in Utopia. I live and base my arguments on the real world.

Your construct above could be applied to humans as well. Then we should all be able to dine on human flesh as well packaged as, "Suffering Free Human Flesh." If suffering does not imply any sense of deprivation of what is one`s own, then it should be allowed, right?

I realize this is hypothetical.

Just saw this[killing without suffering/pain] and adding it to this post as an "edit."

Yes, it is.

[Captain Chaos]

Because reason tells us that suffering is an unpleasant state to be in and might does not make right.

You have not convinced me that a quick and painless death causes suffering. Thus, for the moment, not all violations of an equal consideration of interest can be said to cause suffering.

Your construct above could be applied to humans as well. Then we should all be able to dine on human flesh as well packaged as, "Suffering Free Human Flesh." If suffering does not imply any sense of deprivation of what is one`s own, then it should be allowed, right?

It is within our nature to dislike the murder of other humans. That is why we dislike nurture. If you prefer that I not use the word 'instinct' then I can say that we an inborn tendency to dislike murder.

I believe that tendency also extends to animals, but to a lesser degree.

Just saw this[killing without suffering/pain] and adding it to this post as an "edit." Yes, it is.

Such hypothetical thought experiments are important for isolating root issues.

I still feel that empathy is the underlying drive here, and that more complex ethics are built upon it.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Because reason tells us that suffering is an unpleasant state to be in and might does not make right.

Ok, but just because plants aren't able to suffer, or have not been proven to do so, is it still right in killing it? You mentioned something about a rock earlier, yes it'd be ok to break a rock, or do whatever with it because it has no life. Therefore, thatmakes it justifyable. What's not justifyable is killing plants, but not wanting to kill animals. Just because something doesn't suffer, does that still give you the right to KILL it? The morality exists when one removes the life, not induce the suffering of another being. Therefore, ultimately, you are not living up to these so-called moralities of yours.

To suffer is different than to die. People suffer every day, how is that the same as dying? How is that WORSE than being killed? You put suffering higher than you put death. That is why I see you as neurotic.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Ok, but just because plants aren't able to suffer, or have not been proven to do so, is it still right in killing it? You mentioned something about a rock earlier, yes it'd be ok to break a rock, or do whatever with it because it has no life. Therefore, thatmakes it justifyable. What's not justifyable is killing plants, but not wanting to kill animals. Just because something doesn't suffer, does that still give you the right to KILL it? The morality exists when one removes the life, not induce the suffering of another being. Therefore, ultimately, you are not living up to these so-called moralities of yours. To suffer is different than to die. People suffer every day, how is that the same as dying? How is that WORSE than being killed? You put suffering higher than you put death. That is why I see you as neurotic.

Kudedawg, I tell you what, PM me when you find a well documented source from a well respected researcher and researching org with their research published in a reputable journal that is peer reviewed that plants plants can suffer or feel pain and I will then respond to further posts, or that post, on the issue. Until then, from now on whenever I see your red herring argument you will get a non changing standard reply.

Now, I welcome you to the debate and hope you continue, but I have doubts if you have anything else to offer other than the hollow unproven assertion you keep alluding to that plants can suffer. Support it with evidence in the positive and I will consider it.

As you notice, I haven`t even answered your post above, because as soon as I saw the words "plant" and "suffer" I just scrolled down without reading it.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You have not convinced me that a quick and painless death causes suffering. Thus, for the moment, not all violations of an equal consideration of interest can be said to cause suffering.

Why do you think the "equal consideration of interest" includes only suffering? Whether I am killed painlessly without suffering, I still have an interest in beingn left to live my life unmolested or taken away from me. Animals, too, have an interest in keeping what is theirs and being unmolested.

It is within our nature to dislike the murder of other humans. That is why we dislike nurture. If you prefer that I not use the word 'instinct' then I can say that we an inborn tendency to dislike murder.

We most certanly have a tendency to dislike being the target of murder, and the fear of that is what prompts us to make laws against it. But the fear of it being directed at us is different from a tendency to dislike murder. Our species is well versed in it on small scale and large scale and we seem to like it enough to not have banished it.

I would also say that our desire to legislate against it is more dependent on living in large societies. Before man became settled in societies when great expanses of lands layed between people, it was probably more common to kill over grievances. But, that is just speculation and the use of instinct or tendency does not prove that man has an innate revulsion against killing our own. We do it all the time for things much less than survival.

I believe that tendency[aversion to killing one`s own member species] also extends to animals, but to a lesser degree.

Interesting, but I would disagree. Of the animals that do kill their own members, of which there are not many, most do it less often than humans, do not become serial killers in that practice, do not kill for pleasure, do not organize to wage wars of extinction on other groups of the same species, etc... Most same species killings done by animals are those that center on reproduction or immediate survival issues and in most cases where an animal is losing the fight, the stronger animal will not press the issue to death, but allow the animal to flee.

All our reasons for murder, desiring insurance money, desiring advancement, fullfilling pleasure, etc... are much more nuanced in variety, scope, and scale. Our species has made an art form out of it exploring the many different ways it can be accomplished. Our only aversion to it is that we may be the target of it, but if we can reasonably assume we could get away with it without retribution, many more may resort to it, as do those who already do. Often, the thought of getting caught is the last thing on the murderers mind as they indulge their passion to commit it.

Such hypothetical thought experiments are important for isolating root issues.

I don`t mind them as a means to support eating meat. Like I said, I am not against the fact of eating meat. If we can grow it in labs in the future, then fine. If someone wants to eat meat from a carcass they find on the forest floor, fine. All that is free of man caused suffering. But, meat raised and killed by man in this modern society as suffering free resides only in the hypothetical and hypothetically it, too, can be applied to human flesh. After all, there are those who eat people and they are a reality -- not hypothetical. So, lets apply reason without prejudice, for reason is a tool for all issues and philosophies that should not be made to play favorites -- especially to protect the status quo.

I still feel that empathy is the underlying drive here, and that more complex ethics are built upon it.

For Animal Welfarists, perhaps so, for Animal Rightists it is Reason. Though, like I said before, Animal Rightists do have empathy and most were originally Animal Welfarists and they may still put forth empathy as a support for proper treatment of animals. But, one's arguments for Rights is one mainly based on constructs of reason. I would say the two intermingle with one another just as surely as human rights came about based on empathy for the suffering and injustice of those who were exploited. But, like animal rights, human rights, to be won and codified had to have the groundwork of reasoning laid, because lawmakers were not going to only be convinced that their system should change just because someone felt sorry for someone`s plight.