Vegetarianism

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Elminister So what are you saying here,exactly? That with all things considered a man and a Jersey Brown Cow are equal in terms of worth in society?

Well first, Praxis has been arguing for quite some time now that plants feel pain and therefore there is no difference in eating plants and eating animals. Everyone should be able to consume anything they wish. Not only do I continue to disagree with "plant pain", but to be consistent, he would have to say there is no difference between consuming a plant, and consuming a human.

Your analogy here,for whatever lack of seriousness there may be within, is scary, seriously.

This doesn't surprise me. Most humans are anthropocentric, meaning they consider humans to be at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality.

Obviously, humans and cows play different roles in this world based on their various capacities, but as far as the capacity to suffer harm is considered, they should indeed recieve equal moral consideration. Why shouldn't they?

[Elminister]

Quote by: Lostinlife Well first, Praxis has been arguing for quite some time now that plants feel pain and therefore there is no difference in eating plants and eating animals. Everyone should be able to consume anything they wish. Not only do I continue to disagree with "plant pain", but to be consistent, he would have to say there is no difference between consuming a plant, and consuming a human.

When comparing such vastly different life forms as in plants vs animals one can not place the same standards or values of reactions apon both groups in regards to measuring reaction to adverse or negative stimulus.
Cutting to the point; plants do react to negative or adverse stimulus and these reactions are quite apparentin their own right. Trees that exist in a changing weather region will hold onto their leaves untill colder maintained weather settles in and do not drop their leaves before hand.

There is a specific species of tree that holds onto its seeds for X amount of time or perhaps it holds them untill there is a fire and assuming it survied said fire. Theory is that if the larger tree survived the event odds are that smaller shrubs or brush have not increasing the odds of the seedlings successful growth.

A plant will also amputate a portion of a damaged leaf or the entire leaf altogether if ,say, it's punctured or damaged. The damaged cells of said leaf are sealed off from receiving nutrients from the rest of the organism. Subsequently those damaged cells 'brown over" and fall away from the leaf but yet the leaf itself will continue to collect and supply to the entire oganism.This entire process,like the ones I decribed prior, are not actions but reactions.

Because a plant does not offer up an immediate shrill, piercing scream and recoil away from its attacker does not mean that at that point in time it has not acknowlged an adverse negative action apon itself and also is not reacting to it.

The proper insight will absolutely reveal that plants,in fact, react to assaults of various magnitudes and forms. Plant pain exists. Whatever value you see fit to give it is up to you.

Quote by: Lostinlife This doesn't surprise me. Most humans are anthropocentric, meaning they consider humans to be at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality. Obviously, humans and cows play different roles in this world based on their various capacities, but as far as the capacity to suffer harm is considered, they should indeed recieve equal moral consideration. Why shouldn't they?

Don't misunderstand my questioning your stance as in it conveying that I think animal cruelty does not exist.Thats not what I'm implying so don't try to correlate what I'm saying to with dog fighting or intentional torture, with the only gain being a sadistic show for the one inflicting the pain, of animals. What I'm questioning is your perception of or how far you are trying to reach out with the term 'undue suffering'. I guess to make this easy for me,although you may have answered this question elsewhere so please pardon the repition, are there any circumstances in which you,yourself could be comfortable with in regards to care and eventualy the termination of a cow for beef?

With this being a debate about vegetarianism I'm inclined to think you wouldn't be ok with it in any form.

Would you be ok if the cows were given an enviorment that as closely as possible would resemble how life would be for the cow in the wild? Also, would you be ok if the termination process were rendered painless?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Thank you for all the strawmen, but it is irrelevant what may or may not happen in the future, nor is it relevant what culture currently does what.

Then why did you waste my and everybody else's time asking questions about what you already believe is irrelevant?

You get strawmen, because you asked for strawmen, deal with it.

The simple fact is that your argument renders human rights meaningless, which brings into question why you bother having arguments with anyone.

Really? If human rights are oh so important based on your skewed little hypotheticals you already determined were irrelevant and I already knew were irrelevant (but figured I'd feed you the crap you wanted) ..... then how come I don't see anybody heading down to these tribes in South American and elsewhere in the world to force them to no eat humans?

How come when you see someone head off for their own stupid little adventure into the jungle, whom are clearly warned of the dangers, suddenly gets killed and eaten out of their own stupidity by these cannibal tribes, that nobody goes to go looking for them or to punish these people for their "Crimes?"

Where's the human rights there?

I bother to have arguments with other people in order to educate them into looking at the overall situation, rather then their limited, narrow and poor perspectives, such as your own.

As an example, you come in here after I clearly agreed with someone who doesn't follow the same views as I do and the debate was pretty well to a conclusion as far as I was concerned, only to toss in your hypotheticals that really have no point and even as you said, were irrelevant, answered your foolish questions, only for you to try and act like you got me in a flaw in my reasoning, which you didn't, and you clearly opened yourself up to exposing your own flaws in understanding the situations you listed off and my own personal reason.

Why?

I have no idea, but it only makes your side of the argument more foolish then ever before.

But if you think that helps you accomplish something, all the power to you girlfriend.

Thankfully, most of us, unlike you (although I doubt your being truthful),

Explain to me what logical reason I would have to lie..... if you can't, stop wasting my time.

.... attempt to draw a line SOMEWHERE and tend to be morally opposed to acts that impose obvious pain and suffering on other individuals such as human genocide, and dog fighting.

I draw lines too..... but because my lines do not line perfectly up to your subjective and black/white mentality, suddenly I have no boundaries, no morrals, I must approve of dog fighting and human genocide.

Your counter-arguments are childish and trivial and are silly blame-shifts towards me for my "Strawman" answers to your "Strawman" questions.

Once you actually get a clue about what I am explaining to you, get back to me.... .until then, I'm no longer entertaining your trivial and as you put it "strawmen" arguments you start and prove nothing except give you a chance to rant off about more things you clearly don't understand.

Thanks for playing.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Well first, Praxis has been arguing for quite some time now that plants feel pain and therefore there is no difference in eating plants and eating animals. Everyone should be able to consume anything they wish. Not only do I continue to disagree with "plant pain", but to be consistent, he would have to say there is no difference between consuming a plant, and consuming a human.

Based on our species' past and current history/behaviors worldwide, we do eat all of the above.... which proves my original point, and I find odd that you can't figure this out.

Nor does this even mean that I think humans overall "Should" suddenly eat other humans on a mass scale...... your own misunderstanding and bias towards what I am saying makes you think this. (If it happens it happens, and I'll deal with the situation when it comes.)

Other humans on the planet eat other humans..... this is a fact, a fact that I shouldn't have to explain over and over again to you.

Obviously, humans and cows play different roles in this world based on their various capacities, but as far as the capacity to suffer harm is considered, they should indeed recieve equal moral consideration. Why shouldn't they?

Because morals are subjective.... because morals are generally based around human experiences and human conditioning, and things that affect humans directly.

There are already existing laws and regulations out there to protect animals from certain human actions, and once again.... as I have said countless times before...... I believe there should be more protection for them..... I just don't agree with your view/level of protection.

And if you're not going to take any of my personal beliefs and morals/opinions seriously, why should I give a damn about your own or treat your's any better?

Oh... because you think you're right?

Try again.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Elminister When comparing such vastly different life forms as in plants vs animals one can not place the same standards or values of reactions apon both groups in regards to measuring reaction to adverse or negative stimulus. Cutting to the point; plants do react to negative or adverse stimulus and these reactions are quite apparentin their own right. Trees that exist in a changing weather region will hold onto their leaves untill colder maintained weather settles in and do not drop their leaves before hand. There is a specific species of tree that holds onto its seeds for X amount of time or perhaps it holds them untill there is a fire and assuming it survied said fire. Theory is that if the larger tree survived the event odds are that smaller shrubs or brush have not increasing the odds of the seedlings successful growth. A plant will also amputate a portion of a damaged leaf or the entire leaf altogether if ,say, it's punctured or damaged. The damaged cells of said leaf are sealed off from receiving nutrients from the rest of the organism. Subsequently those damaged cells 'brown over" and fall away from the leaf but yet the leaf itself will continue to collect and supply to the entire oganism.This entire process,like the ones I decribed prior, are not actions but reactions. Because a plant does not offer up an immediate shrill, piercing scream and recoil away from its attacker does not mean that at that point in time it has not acknowlged an adverse negative action apon itself and also is not reacting to it. The proper insight will absolutely reveal that plants,in fact, react to assaults of various magnitudes and forms. Plant pain exists. Whatever value you see fit to give it is up to you.

While I agree with everything you said above, those who don't continually either dismiss this as untrue because "It's not scientifically proven" (which makes no sense because based on the already supplied studies by myself and others, it is true.... not to mention common sense).... or they merely dismiss it because it doesn't fit in their hypocritical beliefs and isn't as important as the "Pain/Suffering" animals may feel...... which is some how just as important as our own pain/suffering...... which is where the hypocracy lies in the first place.

Include one, but exclude the other because it merely suits their biased view.

Don't misunderstand my questioning your stance as in it conveying that I think animal cruelty does not exist.Thats not what I'm implying so don't try to correlate what I'm saying to with dog fighting or intentional torture, with the only gain being a sadistic show for the one inflicting the pain, of animals. What I'm questioning is your perception of or how far you are trying to reach out with the term 'undue suffering'. I guess to make this easy for me,although you may have answered this question elsewhere so please pardon the repition, are there any circumstances in which you,yourself could be comfortable with in regards to care and eventualy the termination of a cow for beef? With this being a debate about vegetarianism I'm inclined to think you wouldn't be ok with it in any form. Would you be ok if the cows were given an enviorment that as closely as possible would resemble how life would be for the cow in the wild? Also, would you be ok if the termination process were rendered painless?

Ah, but see as it was directed to me, that'd be a "Strawman" argument, even though the same was given to me towards humans being eaten by other humans. They don't mind using those types of arguments when they feel it suits their position, but suddenly it's no longer a valid method of argument when it exposes their own hypocracies.

[Elminister]

Quote by: Praxius Include one, but exclude the other because it merely suits their biased view. They don't mind using those types of arguments when they feel it suits their position, but suddenly it's no longer a valid method of argument when it exposes their own hypocracies.

I agree. If Lost were to admit the existance of 'plant pain' then the argument he presents crumbles.

To suggest that animals should be treated equally in all regards and considerations as people are,within the scope of legalities and social standards, is flawed.

The fact that animals are protected by rights created and bestwowed apon them by people just, obviously, shows one as superior to the other.

From what I have seen here and in other threads it's my opinion that his arguments can not or will not accept that fact.

[Lostinlife]

Praxis... I'm not going to play the petty insult game with you, that which is common with your style of debate. Nor do I have the energy to sort through your ramblings, attemping to analyse my post for some hidden meaning. My intentions were simple. that is to see where exactly you stood on the issue of rights. It appears that your siding with moral relativism on the grounds that there still exists cannibalistic and other violent cultures in the world and no one seems to be concerned.

_______________________________________

If humans in remote and sometimes violent areas of the planet have moral rights - and I take for granted that they do, even if they have no legal rights - then do we have obligations to police predatory behavior of local tribes, tyrants, or chieftains? And if "we" do, who is "we"? Do we personally, as individual citizens of economically developed country X, have an obligation to hop a plane to underdeveloped country Y and "take care of business" over there, restoring justice?

(cont.)

[Lostinlife]

Or is it our government and volunteer military operating under a liberal democratic political system that would take on this responsibility? Or perhaps our government's and voluntary military's responsibility is to safeguard our national interests and not to assure human rights for the six billion human inhabitants of the planet?

Isn't the question of how much "we" (i.e. our country or the United Nations) should do to police the world really more of a complicated political question with difficult moral and ethical considerations than a question of human rights, per se? It certainly seems so to me.

Policing humans, like other complicated political and moral questions, generally ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis, with case analyses on specific proposals with specific facts about specific ecologies considered in light of the moral implications of human rights, which need not be absolute.

[Lostinlife]

We need not settle the issue here with broad, sweeping generalizations sure to apply only to a few specific cases, if any at all.

As for wild humans, as opposed to lets say domestic humans, we are not responsibile for their existence and thus have no acquired duties to provide for them. We only have duties to abstain from intentionally harming wild humans and taking reasonable actions to prevent or reduce unintentional harm.

Our duties to police their behavior, the case of policing humans in remote areas and other countries, are limited in any case to reasonable actions (i.e. there are no stringent duties here) and range from no such duties to duties determined on a case-by-case basis considering and balancing ecological sustainability concerns, the advice of experts, and the rights of individual humans.

[Lostinlife]

One of the reasons for writing this is that sometimes animal exploitation advocates bring up the impossibility of "policing all of nature" as an attempted, but failed, reductio ad absurdum of the animal rights position in general.

One sure sign of speciesism is the tendency to, first, cast animal rights in absolute terms admitting no exceptions and to project our corresponding duties as absolutely stringent and impossible to achieve, and second, choose the other extreme of doing whatever we please to animals.

The speciesist notion goes something like this: if animals have rights, then that would require us to establish a planetary utopia whereby we must prevent all harm from any source whatsoever from visiting on animals (one imagines hurling oneself into the path of lightning bolts halfway across the globe and generally doing endless battle with Zeus).

[Lostinlife]

Since we cannot achieve such a state of affairs, so say animal exploitation advocates, we ought to abandon any ideas of rights and accept the opposite extreme of doing whatever we please, perhaps "mitigated" by (impotent) welfare laws.

Animal exploitation advocates ignore all of the middle ground and reasonableness that we apply in formulating and applying human rights, both practically and theoretically, when they think of animal rights.

There is a palpable intellectual dishonesty in the exploitation advocates' "ignorance of" or refusal to acknowledge the middle ground and reasonableness of animal rights and the similarities, particularly in this regard, of human rights and animal rights in both theory and practice.

derived from - unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Elminister I agree. If Lost were to admit the existance of 'plant pain' then the argument he presents crumbles

Here we have the authority of logic, science and "truth" being imprecated against the sorry state of AR nescience and "mythology". Yet, no single published book, or paper in a scientific journal, has been cited as indeed making this claim that "plants feel pain".

Sure, there is interesting evidence about plants reacting to local tissue damage and even sending signalling molecules serving to stimulate certain chemical defenses of nearby plants. But what has this got to do with supporting the only morally relevant claim worth considering, namely that "plants FEEL AND SUFFER from pain" Where are the scientific references for this putative fact?

[Lostinlife]

Although you plant pain promoters are fond of reductios, you will not likely appreciate the following extension of your own. By your "logic", it would equally be the case that rain clouds behave purposefully in the sense that they could be said to functionally remove, by way of raining, excessive moisture that is causing their overstaturation.

Furthermore, rain clouds bear meaningful information about their level of oversaturation in the form of weight relative to volume. Do not clouds, therefore, "sense" (in some tortured notion of the word) when atmospheric pressure is insufficient for their moisture content to remain in a vaporous state?

The promoters of plant pain would have us believe, against our good common sense, that by the mere presence of purposive BEHAVIOURS of avoidance and REACTIONS to tissue damage in plants we therefore must attribute to plants mental states like that of some kind of "felt pain".

[Lostinlife]

Well, then by the same logic we must do the same to clouds. In the hole that these promoters of plant pain would dig for themselves, not only must we accept the thesis of plant pain, we would also have to swallow some notion of "cloud sentience"!

Lets get back to common sense, organisms such as humans, dogs, chickens, pigs, cows, goats, and sheep look, behave, and move in ways that highly suggest sentience defined as the experience of sensation and emotion. organisms such as plants look, behave, and stay still (unless the wind is blowing) in ways that highly suggest absolutely no sentience (again, defined as the experience of sensation and emotion). Absent an excellent reason to reject such strong appearances we ought to accept them.

Even if we were to accept that plants experience pain, humans, through their capacity to empathize, will most likely choose the lesser of two evils. First, because plants are much more difficult to identify with in terms of "pain and suffering".

(cont.)

[Lostinlife]

And second, we must consume some sort of life to survive, thus making harvesting and feeding on "plant remains" a justified and nessacery evil. Furthermore, plants contain all the essential amino acids that our bodies require to survive, while nonhuman animals do not, thus making the consumption of plants all the more crucial and sustainable.

Frankly, it annoys me how "plant pain" arguments are only brought up when one is forced to defend his support of animal exploitation, otherwise the thought would, typically, never have surfaced.

Read more -

Absurdity of Plant Pain

Unpopular Vegan Essays: Plant Sentience

BTW sorry for the multiple posts, but I'm on the damn PS3 again, and I'm only allowed to type a certain number of characters per post. It cannot be avoided at this time, and unfortunately... this subject is a MOUTH FULL.

[Lostinlife]

The fact is that animals, via their actions and behaviors, are much more applicable as being seen as individuals than plants, or being labeled as a someone rather than a something.

Everything science has learned about other species points out the biological similarities between humans and nonhumans. As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not differences of kind.

Since both humans and nonhumans evolved over millions of years and share similar nervous systems and other organs, there is no reason to think we do not share a similar mental and emotional life with other animal species (especially mammals).

For proof of this... maybe you'd like take a moment and watch the most "humane" slaughter that is possible:

YouTube - DANS LE COULOIR DE LA MORT (Death Row)

This is not a particularly violent video, but rather simply shows the state of the animal, waiting for death.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Elminister The fact that animals are protected by rights created and bestwowed apon them by people just, obviously, shows one as superior to the other.

This is flawed in a multitude of ways. The application of a moral concept is not determined by those that devised it. If moral benefits went only to the devisors of moral concepts, then most of humanity would be excluded from the moral community.

It is irrelevant wheather animals devised rights or can even understand the concept of rights. We do not require that humans be potential devisors of rights or understand the concept of rights in order to be beneficiaries of rights.

For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is. but that does not mean we should not accord him or her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.

[Diogenes]

my gawd Lostinlife, you have been busy...11 posts in a row...that must be a record I'm having a honey ham sandwich right now...absolutely yummy

[Clementine]

Quote by: Lostinlife Praxis... I'm not going to play the petty insult game with you, that which is common with your style of debate. Nor do I have the energy to sort through your ramblings, attemping to analyse my post for some hidden meaning. My intentions were simple. that is to see where exactly you stood on the issue of rights. It appears that your siding with moral relativism on the grounds that there still exists cannibalistic and other violent cultures in the world and no one seems to be concerned. _______________________________________ If humans in remote and sometimes violent areas of the planet have moral rights - and I take for granted that they do, even if they have no legal rights - then do we have obligations to police predatory behavior of local tribes, tyrants, or chieftains? And if "we" do, who is "we"? Do we personally, as individual citizens of economically developed country X, have an obligation to hop a plane to underdeveloped country Y and "take care of business" over there, restoring justice? (cont.)

What are moral rights? Do you mean human rights?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Diogenes I'm having a honey ham sandwich right now...absolutely yummy

This thread is about vegetarianism, Diogenes, and not about cannibalism...