Vegetarianism

[Diogenes]

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

Oops! Sorry...excuse me while I go fry up a nice juicy steak

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife Praxis... I'm not going to play the petty insult game with you,

I haven't even begun to insult anybody, so you'd be only playing with yourself.

that which is common with your style of debate.

Just because I don't suck-hole everything you say doesn't mean I'm insulting you. I addressed your replies directly and in detail to what you have said, so rather then complaining and moaning that you're being insulted where no insults exist and continually avoiding related points with more ranting and ramblings of your own, how about you actually debate for once?

Nor do I have the energy to sort through your ramblings,

Then you're not worth the time to debate if all you're going to do is dictate and not actually reply to people's comments and questions like others are doing for you.

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 you think whatever I believe is going to be some danger to society or your own security, or that I am some how going to go out there in the world and force everyone to believe what I think they should believe, then you clearly have lost the point originally being trying to be made.

Others here don't seem to have a problem understanding what I am saying, so what's your problem that you feel everybody should "Be Concerned" with my views?

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?

Since I already brought this question up earlier for you to answer, why the heck are you now asking me?

My original question:

"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?"

Apparently my suspicions were correct, in that you honestly don't bother to read other people's replies to your posts..... then again, this should have been an obvious clue:

"Nor do I have the energy to sort through your ramblings"

If you don't have the energy to Debate and everything you don't agree with are mere "Ramblings" then don't bother to waste our time in the first place if all you want to do is dictate and finger point.

Now.... are you going to actually reply to the questions previously directed at you or shall we continue this little trisk of going nowhere fast?

[Praxius]

Quote by: 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.

And what does this have to do with anything? Which post or comment is this supposed to relate to?

[Praxius]

Quote by: 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).

You do know you could have put most of all of this in two or three posts, rather then 11 posts.

You speak of black and white extremes.... where we apply protection on all and everything, or we use and abuse everything we desire to..... then argue that there seems to be no inbetween.

There is an inbetween which is the system we currently have now, so what's the problem?

I take it you believe it's not good enough and we need more? I agree to some extent and there should be stronger punishments for those who needlessly harm or kill creatures....... but I don't see how any of this applies to eating meat or veggies.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife 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?

The problem is that you're still revolving around the word "Pain" which is a subjective and lose-ended term that can mean whatever someone wants it to.

The fact of the matter is that "Pain" and "Pleasure" are all directly determined by electrical and chemical reactions to stimuli and we humans have subjectively determined whether these electrical or chemical reactions are "Pain" or "Pleasure."

Look at how some people can find getting a tattoo either painful or pleasurable, or how some people get pleasure out of rough sex, and others don't...... the stimuli is the exact same, yet a person's response to that stimuli can and does varry.

In other words, constantly resorting back to whether or not plants feel pain or pleasure is a flawed way of looking at the overall situation at play.

First agree that they respond to stimuli like every other living creature on this planet.... now agree that depending on the type of stimuli, those plants will respond accordingly....... then agree that animals, humans, and other creatures do the exact same thing depending on the type of stimuli.

Since you pretty well already agreed to all of the above based on the above post and previous ones, why is it such a difficult thing for you to understand that plants react to stimuli in very much the same manner as humans and other creatures do? Why are you trying to limit your understanding because you want proof of subjective "Pain" or "Pleasure" within plants?

Nobody knows if plants feel "Pain" or "Pleasure" in the same sense as we humans do, anymore then we know if other living creatures feel "Pain" or "Pleasure" as we humans do...... some may find that they have similar reactions to humans..... but is it the same?

How about the exact same?

Does it have to be the exact same responses to stimuli as what we experience to warrent their protection from such "Suffering?"

If not and it only has to be similar by some random degree..... then what is your argument against plants, even if they react by just a fraction similar to how we would react?

You explain that people are arguing for absolutes, which means that if we apply equal protection on animals as we do for humans, we should apply it to plants as well. What's wrong with this?

Where is your justification to apply equal or similar protection for animals as we have for humans, but stop when it comes to plants?

Because you want "Proof" of their subjective "Pain" responses?

It would seem above and through many other posts, not just from me but by others, that this has been determined..... even if by a fraction of what we experience, it exists..... proof?

Pain
Pain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A definition by Margo McCaffery, widely used in nursing since 1968, reflects pain's subjective nature: "Pain is whatever the experiencing person says it is, existing whenever he says it does"

So you're trying to win a debate by restricting your understanding around a broad and subjective term and excluding it where it suits your argument.

let's delve a little deeper into what "Pain" is shall we?

Pain, used without a modifier, usually refers to physical pain, but it may also refer to pain in the broad sense, i.e. suffering. Care should be taken to make the right distinction when required between the two meanings. For instance, 'philosophy of pain' is essentially about physical pain, while a philosophical outlook on pain is rather about suffering. Or, as another quite different instance, nausea or itch are not 'physical pain', but they are unpleasant sensory or bodily experience, and a person 'suffering' from severe or prolonged nausea or itch may be said to be 'in pain'. More generally, the terms pain and suffering are often used both together in different senses which can become confusing: they may be used as synonyms; they may be used in 'contradistinction' to one another: e.g. "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional", or "pain is physical, suffering is mental"; they may be used to define each other: e.g. "pain is physical suffering", or "suffering is severe physical or mental pain". To avoid confusion, this article is about physical pain in the narrow sense of a typical sensory experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. This excludes pain in the broad sense of any unpleasant experience, which is covered in detail by the article Suffering.

^ Thus pain fits into relation of plants reacting to stimuli of damaged tissue, which has been proven in previously supplied reports and studies for the last number of pages...... reacting to stimulation from being injured/damaged or receiving signals about such injury or damage is in essence "PAIN."

So...... where is your justification for excluding the recognition of plantlife?

Is it just easier to ignore?

By all means, I am directing to you legit and related questions and comments. If I get another response from you about me rambling or ranting or insulting you and more avoidance of my responses..... then you clearly have proven your failure in this debate.

[Praxius]

Quote by: 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.

No more then feeding off of animals.... what's worse however, is that we don't normally eat "Plant Remains" we usually eat plants as they are, usually alive.

They are chopped up, boild, ripped from the ground, pulled apart.... all while they are technically alive..... thus still able to receive stimuli of what is being done to them.

Animals are usually killed before they are chopped up, boiled or pulled apart, thus limiting the amount of suffering they would encounter.

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.

There are many other nutrients we can easily get and by abundance from animals which would be either impossible or extremely difficult to get from plantlife depending on where on lives, the season, what plants are available in your area, the quantity of plants to consume to meet the amount one would get from meat, etc.

We've already been down this road pages ago and debunked this claim a number of times, I see no reason to entetain this any further......

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.

Well when veggie eaters want to justify their own actions based around "Pain and Suffering" then they should have to justify why they are subjective towards protecting one living species from this, while ignoring, trivializing or ignoring the same from another.

Bringing up plant stimuli isn't my defense for what I do, as I have a number of reasons and justifications for why I also eat meat..... which I already went into great detail multiple times already explaining.

This part of the debate about plants and their reaction to stimuli is more so done to expose Veggie eater's own hypocracy, which they are so determined to ignore or refuse exists.

The difference is that for myself and those like me, I already know that in order for me to live, something else must die...... Thus based on this, based on the other reasons of resource availability, mass reproduction, global demand, variety of nutrients.... and yes... based on plants and their own reactions to stimuli, There seems to be no logic in holding a bias for one type of living creature on this planet over another, just because one has cute widdle eyes and the other is a stem with leaves and petals.

Read more - Absurdity of Plant Pain Unpopular Vegan Essays: Plant Sentience

I'll look into those once I see the same courtesy shown for my own posts and other's. I no longer see any point in responding to your own posts and comments when you don't return the favor.

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.

Ah, that explains it then.... I retract my last statement about posts.

[Healthydose]

Many scientific studies have proved that vegatarians do live longer. There was one on the Seventh Day Adventists they lived longer and had a greatly reduced apperance of a whole slew of other degenerative diseases as well.

I'm a Veg.my whole family as well. in 20 years we've never been to the dr. We dont have a family dr. Protien that's easy, combine any bean or legume with rice or corn and you have a complete amino acid WITHOUT all the other junk pumped into the animals.

The only thing we do need that can't get from what we eat is B12. But that's easy also, just sprinkle brewers yeast on soup, salad, whaterever.

[Shade]

Quote by: Healthydose The only thing we do need that can't get from what we eat is B12. But that's easy also, just sprinkle brewers yeast on soup, salad, whaterever.

Shouldn't that be a clue that there's something unhealthy about your diet?

[Lostinlife]

Neither plants NOR animals make vitamin B12. Bacteria are responsible for producing it. Animals get their B12 from eating foods contaminated with it and then the animal becomes a source.

But, the requirement for vitamin B12 is very low. Non-animal sources include Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula or T-6635+ nutritional yeast (a little less than 1 Tablespoon supplies the adult RDA), and vitamin B12 fortified soymilk. A vegan diet can be extremely healthy for you, you just have to be smart about it, like any other diet there is.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Lostinlife Neither plants NOR animals make vitamin B12. Bacteria are responsible for producing it. Animals get their B12 from eating foods contaminated with it and then the animal becomes a source. But, the requirement for vitamin B12 is very low. Non-animal sources include Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula or T-6635+ nutritional yeast (a little less than 1 Tablespoon supplies the adult RDA), and vitamin B12 fortified soymilk. A vegan diet can be extremely healthy for you, you just have to be smart about it, like any other diet there is.

Spare a thought for us poor would-be vegan migraine sufferers for whom brewer's yeast is sheer poison - like red wine or mature cheese... along with all fermented foods.

One of the reasons I had to stop being a vegan was the terrible headaches - until I found that they were largely the result of taking B12 supplements. Same goes for all iron supplements, and any of the 'B' vitamins.

Diet can be a minefield for a minority of us.

[Elminister]

Quote by: 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).

The prose of 'animal rights' in and of istelf is derived from society that man has constructed, not animals. Anything said that further supports that point also supports the fact within that depiction of 'animal rights' its the superior race bestowing apon and inferior one. But yet you continue to argue that both needs equal consideration in all regards.

This is a long winded response to my question to you about being ok with the situation of handling beef cattle and thus the termination being rendered painless. You essentialy are saying "No"

Well, then, within the exact wording of my question you just threw your whole "suffering" argument away. Your saying that without the suffering your infering you would still be against it.

So, what is your underlying argument for disallowing the use of cattle for beef or even for milk ,as your term exploitation would imply?

[Elminister]

Quote by: 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.

Nobody is offering this as a point of view. Either direct or inferred.
Your using subtleties to advocate your use of all encompasing generalizations. Nobody is,as far as I have read, is supporting the notion of offering up animals to do "whatever we please" to them.

Can you offer up a quote to support your counter argument?

[Elminister]

Quote by: Lostinlife 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".

Researchers from Michigan State University have discovered that plants have a rudimentary nerve structure, which allows them to feel pain. According to the peer-reviewed journal Plant Physiology, plants are capable of identifying danger, signaling that danger to other plants and marshaling defenses against perceived threats.

Recent studies have proven plants have feelings, too - The Daily Collegian Online

YouTube - The Extrasensory perception of plants

The first experiment, and possibly the most remarkably revealing of all, was to attach electrodes to the surface of the trap lobes in the hope of recording electrical activity. He found that each time a trigger hair was touched it fired off a wave of electrical activity almost identical to the nerve impulses, or action potentials, produced by animal neurons. This experiment was carried out on the Sundew and Sensitive plant - with similar conclusions!

Touch sensitive movement is known to occur in over 1,000 different species of plants. Other common ones are the tendrils of peas, which curl towards a 'touch', and of course the twining stems of beans.

Darwin was fascinated by carnivorous plants, in particular the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) and its response touch. He believed that the way the plant snapped its trap shut indicated the presence of a central nervous system - such as that of an animal.

Do Plants have feelings? Sense of feel.

It is very possible that plants have sensitivities that we do not yet understand. Because plants do not have nervous systems and cannot run away from predators, it has generally been assumed that they do not experience pain and suffering. Recent scientific evidence suggests that this assumption may be incorrect. However, we do know that birds and other nonhuman vertebrates have well- developed nervous systems and pain receptors the same as humans. Like us, they show pleasure and pain and they present comparable evidence of fear and well-being. Animals cry out in pain, they nurse wounded body parts, and they seek to avoid those who have hurt them in the past.

This is from a pro-vege site. It then goes onto why that 'pain' of plants should be ingored in consideration of the lesser of two evils.

http://www.upc-online.org/ethics_questions.html

Quote by: Lostinlife 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?

I agree. There is ample scientific evidence that plants react to damge in the only way they can. It appears you havent been looking in the right places. If your looking for a quote from somebody saying that plants suffer and interpret pain like animals do your holding onto a word-play argument that really doesn't apply.

The actions in discussion here must be weighed and appropriated by their source. Your failing to allow this simple scientific and logical consideration reveals your inability to place your argument on level ground instead of a pedestal.

[Elminister]

Quote by: 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".

Ummm, clouds are not living entities. Speaking factualy; Plants and animals are living things. Any relation of clouds to animals and plants in terms of this topic is an argument that is not applicable.

Please don't compare your common sense to mine own for, obviously, if differs significantly. Common sense tells me there is a difference between behavior of a thing and a reaction of a living thing. The "mere presence of purposive behaviours" and reactions signify a lot of things. The willingness to be harvested or 'hurt' is not one of them.

[Elminister]

Quote by: 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"!

Clouds are molecules of dust and water vapor. They arent alive. Again I will state that clouds are not alive and plants are.No, we must not accept the fact that clouds are alive for; Science,common sense, and most grade school children can tell you otherwise.

Quote by: Lostinlife 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.)

Ahhh, here enters the "lesser of two evils" theme again. How predictable.So you apply the moral offering of what you yourself consider "evil" and somehow it should trump my own moral view of right and wrong. You don't find that hypocritcal?


Plants behave explicitly by their design as construed by nautre. They are designed quite differently that animals,obviously, yet here again you insist on comparing reactions, using the only natural abilities they have, of plants and animals and because they are not identical, for even more obvious reasons, you seem to think it gives you ground for dismissal of a notion.

You are merely refusing to allow considerations that logically must be allowed when comparing simular things that have underlying differences and your only doing so to try to keep your argument beyond reproach.

It's not working.

[Elminister]

Quote by: 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.

In the beginning of this post you are simply trying to justiy comsumption without regards to pain when your whole argument about not consuming animals is predicated solely on the presence of pain in situations.

[Elminister]

Quote by: Lostinlife This is flawed in a multitude of ways. The application of a moral concept is not determined by those that devised it.

This sentence makes no sense. Are you saying those that make the "moral copncepts" do not offer up ways to apply the "concept"?

Quote by: Lostinlife If moral benefits went only to the devisors of moral concepts, then most of humanity would be excluded from the moral community.

"Moral concepts" devised by humans then conferred onto other humans. Being human is the necessary quo that need be met. This point is irrelevant in regards to my point.

Quote by: Lostinlife 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.

But we do require they be humans thus being deserving of human rights.

Quote by: Lostinlife 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.

Your example does not apply to my statement because even a severly retarded human is still a human thus being deserving of basic human rights.

Every example you gave here was a lateral movement within a demography and thats not what I was talking about.

"Moral concepts" are strictly a human device. Humans are the demograph when talking about the originating of "moral concepts" thus conveying/bestowing these "concepts" to within outside the demograph indicates authority when bestowed apon a demograph which can not originate such "moral concepts" I.E....animals. It is by this authority you are given the "moral concepts" to argue on behalf of animals.

If the authority was not there to begin with your argument wouldn't be either.


Follow?

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Elminister C Ahhh, here enters the "lesser of two evils" theme again. How predictable.So you apply the moral offering of what you yourself consider "evil" and somehow it should trump my own moral view of right and wrong. You don't find that hypocritcal?

Whether you are one of them or not, "most" humans feel greater degrees of compassion when faced with a suffering they can clearly equate with their own....in fact, the human ability to empathize is based upon this. When young children first begin to develop empathic skill (in toddlerhood) it is this 'recognition' of expression that 'mirrors' their own that is responsible for the occurrence of the empathic response.

If you were forced to slash the stem of a flower or the throat of a dog, you'd honestly have trouble choosing one over the other?......If so...you are different than most empathic humans.

Plants behave explicitly by their design as construed by nautre. They are designed quite differently that animals,obviously, yet here again you insist on comparing reactions, using the only natural abilities they have, of plants and animals and because they are not identical, for even more obvious reasons, you seem to think it gives you ground for dismissal of a notion.

Without a brain or mind a plant likely does not have an ability to 'think.' As it is the pain and FEAR..ie; 'suffering' on the part of an animal that many vegans find problematic, it's difficult to hold an organism that reacts without an ability to 'think' on the same level in terms of compassion we choose to extend.

This argument continually arises in an effort to show hyprocricy amongst animal advocates....yet in reality, if most humans, meat eaters and vegans alike, are being honest, we do think differently about the capability to experience fear and/or pain in plants vs. animals.

Very few would argue that animals do not feel pain or experience fear in a similar manner to humans,...for the most part, science has proven this... Yet, most of us require much more scientific evidence before we're willing to place plants on the same level as animals in terms of ethical consideration...right or wrong, this is simply a present day fact. An ability on the part of an organism to think and essentially 'BE' aware is for most of us, a necessity when ethical consideration is being given to such a life form...without consciousness or thinking awareness....it's difficult to imagine how suffering could occur. Until it is proven that a plant possesses a mechanism for experiencing conscious thought, it's unlikely that plants will be given full ethical consideration.

Humans must eat something in order to survive. For those who choose veganism for ethical reasons, choosing to kill a plant IS a lesser evil than choosing to kill an animal.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Elminister Clouds are molecules of dust and water vapor. They arent alive. Again I will state that clouds are not alive and plants are.No, we must not accept the fact that clouds are alive for; Science,common sense, and most grade school children can tell you otherwise.

That's true - you don't see many people walking their pet clouds along the street I must admit.

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri Whether you are one of them or not, "most" humans feel greater degrees of compassion when faced with a suffering they can clearly equate with their own....in fact, the human ability to empathize is based upon this. When young children first begin to develop empathic skill (in toddlerhood) it is this 'recognition' of expression that 'mirrors' their own that is responsible for the occurrence of the empathic response. If you were forced to slash the stem of a flower or the throat of a dog, you'd honestly have trouble choosing one over the other?......If so...you are different than most empathic humans.

In terms of equating and empathy I follow what your saying. In terms of equating relative values within debate Lost in Lifes' stance doesn't hold up. Because plants are vastly different than mammals in terms of reaction and display of cognitive prowess that does not mean they do not posses these same qualities in their own rights. That is merely a cosmetic observation.

Quote by: inri Without a brain or mind a plant likely does not have an ability to 'think.' As it is the pain and FEAR..ie; 'suffering' on the part of an animal that many vegans find problematic, it's difficult to hold an organism that reacts without an ability to 'think' on the same level in terms of compassion we choose to extend. This argument continually arises in an effort to show hyprocricy amongst animal advocates....yet in reality, if most humans, meat eaters and vegans alike, are being honest, we do think differently about the capability to experience fear and/or pain in plants vs. animals.

Again this is a cosmetic observation using a humans power of relating to another mammals display of pain. In turn dismissing the natural attributes of a plant because it is dissimilar.

Quote by: inri Very few would argue that animals do not feel pain or experience fear in a similar manner to humans,...for the most part, science has proven this... Yet, most of us require much more scientific evidence before we're willing to place plants on the same level as animals in terms of ethical consideration...right or wrong, this is simply a present day fact. An ability on the part of an organism to think and essentially 'BE' aware is for most of us, a necessity when ethical consideration is being given to such a life form...without consciousness or thinking awareness....it's difficult to imagine how suffering could occur. Until it is proven that a plant possesses a mechanism for experiencing conscious thought, it's unlikely that plants will be given full ethical consideration.

You are demanding a quality from another living thing that it currently cannot posess by natural design or as far as we can observe. In saying that should it possess "conscious thought" would that then then remove it from the list of things ok to kill and consume, well, a cow can't rationalize with me in a discussion why it shouldn't be terminated and subsequentially eaten so therefore I say it's ok. All it can do is react to pain or the anticipation of and that's if it is even percieved by the cow and then that reaction is just a display of abilites and behaviours it posseses naturally, just like a plant.

What if the cow does not perceive a threat and its death is painless?

Im not implying that plants and animals be put on the same pedestal per se. What I'm saying is to acknowledge a plants only available reactions to adverse stimuli and give credit where it is due. All things considered we then roll into the "lesser of two evils" theme and, therein, moraly subjective terms and considerations come into play and essentialy are no more valid than those that hold opposing moral veiws.

Quote by: inri Humans must eat something in order to survive. For those who choose veganism for ethical reasons, choosing to kill a plant IS a lesser evil than choosing to kill an animal.

Would it be unethical to treat a cow well and give it a painless death? Would that be acceptable?The round-about answer I received from Lost in Life was, no.
Whats yours?