Vegetarianism

[Elminister]

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

There was a fad here in the States ,some time ago, that involved the purchase and care of "Pet Rocks". No matter how well they were dressed up and detail given to the cutesy little faces painted apon them you just couldn't pass one off as,alive.... Go figure.

[Lostinlife]

Elminister my last response, minus the plant parts, was to Praxis NOT YOU... for the love of god I can't keep up with all these long responses. Your going to have you know... calm down...

The only thing that I have ever maintained is that even if an animal is killed painlessly, he/she STILL has an interest in living, which, to me at least, is an unpardonable crime to take that away from them.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Elminister There was a fad here in the States ,some time ago, that involved the purchase and care of "Pet Rocks". No matter how well they were dressed up and detail given to the cutesy little faces painted apon them you just couldn't pass one off as,alive.... Go figure.

That's probably why pet clouds will never catch on, they're SO difficult to dress in fashionable clothes.

[DEEJ85]

Quote by: Lostinlife Elminister my last response, minus the plant parts, was to Praxis NOT YOU... for the love of god I can't keep up with all these long responses. Your going to have you know... calm down... The only thing that I have ever maintained is that even if an animal is killed painlessly, he/she STILL has an interest in living, which, to me at least, is an unpardonable crime to take that away from them.

Plants have an interest in living.

If any species anywhere did not take an active role in its own survival ( ie: wanting to survive) that species would have been removed by evolution.


They are constantly in competition with other plants over resources and space. They also have defensive mechanisms to protect themselves from those that would eat them (thorns, toxins etc).

Some plants even release a hormone that attracts the predators of those trying to eat them.

Plant defense against herbivory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if I was to concede that plants feel no pain, you cannot deny that plants still have an interest in living.

So, since plants, like animals both have an interest in living. Then if you were to provide a painless death for the animal, then you are placing that animal on a level playing field with plants which also have an interest and (allegedly) no pain.

I can understand doubt about plant pain, it is an interpretation of plant physiology which is hard to qualify. But you cannot deny that plants take a role in their own survival and have an interest in living.

Lostinlife, plants still have an interest in living, is that not an unpardonable crime to take it away from them?

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Elminister 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.

Is it not more than a mere 'cosmetic' observation when the level of science currently reached finds no means whatsoever for a plant to experience consciousness by which to 'feel' anything? Certainly, science may advance in the future and we may find that a brain is not actually necessary for an organism to 'have experience'....right now though...this is where we sit.....a plant as far as we know, has no consciousness by which to experience any of it's reflexive-like behaviors...or the stimuli that causes them.

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.

As human beings, we are confined by our 'human-like' perspective....it's difficult to get around this. Once again...our empathic responses are hard-wired to respond to behaviors that mirror our own.

You are demanding a quality from another living thing that it currently cannot posess by natural design or as far as we can observe.

I'm demanding qualities that arouse feelings of compassion within me. I simply do not feel compassion for something that appears to me to be incapable of 'feeling'......or being aware of 'feeling.' If science proves plant consciousness in the future and deems plants capable of a form of suffering that causes me to feel empathy, I'll revise my position.

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.

Most humans....(clearly not all....) admit and acknowledge that an animal in pain is difficult to watch as this observation triggers feeling of empathy and compassion, due to the fact that this suffering comes very close to mirrorring our own. If someone has doubts whether or not an animal suffers in a meaningful way....then it's very likely this person will have no empathic response, therefore, no personal ethical dilemma.
However, when one feels and acknowledges the suffering of such an animal to be a real thing.....an ethical dilemma exists.....

If we deem it wrong to cause another living being to suffer at our hands for a mere preference....and we agree that a cow does in fact suffer during this process, then logically, we must deem it wrong to cause animals to suffer for a food preference.

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

Imo..there's no doubt that this is far better than a life and death of great suffering ...however, it could be argued that a great wrong occurs when the life of any sentient being is taken for frivolous reason.

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.

Those who hold a reverence for all life forms, generally do extend a certain level of respect to plant life,however it's quite another thing to attempt to conjure up empathy and compassionate action when evidence simply does not present itself to facilitate this.

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.

What in your personal opinion would be the 'lesser of two evils'? Slashing the throat of a dog....or slashing the stem of a flower?...why?

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?

Again....this scenario sits far better with me personally than the alternative...the least amount of suffering the better...always....however, the idea that humans can choose to take the life of another sentient being for a mere preference, simply because we possess the power to do so, is one that most ethical vegans simply cannot abide by.

[Healthydose]

Nope, not at all. Since that need, the only one, is met. Like I said we don't have a family dr., nor have we ever been to one.Some friends of mine have prostate and colon cancer. What has the dr told them.....stop eating meat. Same thing I told them many years ago...if only they'd of listened. :(

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Healthydose Nope, not at all. Since that need, the only one, is met. Like I said we don't have a family dr., nor have we ever been to one.Some friends of mine have prostate and colon cancer. What has the dr told them.....stop eating meat. Same thing I told them many years ago...if only they'd of listened. :(

apart from a few cuts and bruises i to never bother with a doctor. i never catch a cold even when the rest of my family is sniffling and coughing. i remain obstinately healthy. i eat meat, never been a problem.
so what's your point?

[Healthydose]

As I posted earlier, vegatarians have been proven to live longer--many studies have been done--and there are a slew of other degenerative diseases that they are able to avoid. My point? That the balanced vegatarian diet is better. One cow will feed about ten people. The same land needed to support and grow that cow will support 100 people on a vegartian diet.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Healthydose As I posted earlier, vegatarians have been proven to live longer--many studies have been done--and there are a slew of other degenerative diseases that they are able to avoid. My point? That the balanced vegatarian diet is better. One cow will feed about ten people. The same land needed to support and grow that cow will support 100 people on a vegartian diet.

i agree, it would be a better use of resources to grow food for us than to feed a cow.
one can also have a balanced diet that includes meat. the sicknesses you talk about relating to meat are for the most part caused because of an excessive amount of meat in the diet.
and in the end i myself have no moral qualms about killing.

[Healthydose]

Oh, don't get me wrong. If somebody wants to eat meat I'm not out to "get" them. I know some get rather militant about it. Which to me is quite foolish. Everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they hurt, nor harm someone else, or their property.

[Lostinlife]

And why does an animal not qualify as "someone"?

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri Is it not more than a mere 'cosmetic' observation when the level of science currently reached finds no means whatsoever for a plant to experience consciousness by which to 'feel' anything? Certainly, science may advance in the future and we may find that a brain is not actually necessary for an organism to 'have experience'....right now though...this is where we sit.....a plant as far as we know, has no consciousness by which to experience any of it's reflexive-like behaviors...or the stimuli that causes them.

Plants do "feel" things and react accordingly. Temperature changes, ambient light source levels and relative direction of. A few species of plants react ,and rather quickly, to direct physical contact. I can offer up many scientifically supported examples of how plants produce/display sentient behaviour. Despite how rudimentary they may be interpreted by people, these actions fall within the bounds and descriptions of "experiencing sensation or feeling"

It's the stretching of what this qualities semblance should present in order to fufill ones desire,no matter how "hard-wired" it may be, to be able to connect through empathy. These rudimentary displays of sentience fall within the same genre no matter how far removed they may be from each other in terms of perceived likeness to what we humans display vs. other mammals.

The individual chooses ,to whatever degree, to give these actions an extent of moral consideration. More likely to suit their own choice of lifestyle vs. an innumerable amount of animals and plants needs/wants/fears...Ect. That's fine with me. If being a vegan works for you, cool.

But don't assume to refute my argument on the basis of your own moral consideration of pain and worthiness of existence for I'm not offering an argument in and of opposistion of the very morals you are displaying but one in and of simularity. Like it or not, that is the case.

Quote by: inri As human beings, we are confined by our 'human-like' perspective....it's difficult to get around this. Once again...our empathic responses are hard-wired to respond to behaviors that mirror our own.

No, it is not hard to escape this type of restricted perception. It's one of mans' finely honed traits in that being able to remove himself from a situation and analyze it and play with concepts like probability and construction of mechanisims through circumstance and relativity. Like flying a kite with a metal key tied to the string during a lightning storm

Scientific tools and logic allow man to peer at and into items, beyond how we perceive some things when using ourselves as standards.

Quote by: inri I'm demanding qualities that arouse feelings of compassion within me.

This is a one-hundred percent subjective argument. Our arguments are using differentiating rulers marked with a different fineness of incremnets, it seems.

Quote by: inri I simply do not feel compassion for something that appears to me to be incapable of 'feeling'......or being aware of 'feeling.' If science proves plant consciousness in the future and deems plants capable of a form of suffering that causes me to feel empathy, I'll revise my position.

Then you are using your perception and as such, it is being graduated by your fondness or value of empathy through association. That's fine with me too, actually.

The argument you have put forth states that others too should employ the same state of value of empathetic association you do when giving both moral and relative value to the actions of living things. That argument directly conflicts with the value of individualsim, a benchmark achievement of man through social and biological evolution. An achievement that, through correlation, Lost in Life and parhaps you too are attempting to bestow on all animals as well, in that they should be considered equally ,in a moral context to humans in all manors relating to existence.

Quote by: inri Most humans....(clearly not all....) admit and acknowledge that an animal in pain is difficult to watch as this observation triggers feeling of empathy and compassion, due to the fact that this suffering comes very close to mirrorring our own. If someone has doubts whether or not an animal suffers in a meaningful way....then it's very likely this person will have no empathic response, therefore, no personal ethical dilemma. However, when one feels and acknowledges the suffering of such an animal to be a real thing.....an ethical dilemma exists.....

Would the sight of a Sequoia Tree being cut down moraly impact you in the same fashion that the sight of a Dandylion Flower being cut down would? Most people would say,no. An apparent moral variation given within the same demography for they are both plants and possess the same fundamental physiological traits.

Quote by: inri If we deem it wrong to cause another living being to suffer at our hands for a mere preference....and we agree that a cow does in fact suffer during this process, then logically, we must deem it wrong to cause animals to suffer for a food preference. What in your personal opinion would be the 'lesser of two evils'? Slashing the throat of a dog....or slashing the stem of a flower?...why? .

If I had to choose one to dispatch of to eat ,because thats what we are talking about here, then Rover is history I'm affraid. The lesser of two evils would be myself not starving vs. myself starving. I may make a salad out of the flower, depending on what variety of dressing were available.

Let me ask you this; Suppose the "extortion" of all product animals came to a stop, what then would the plans be for the sheer hordes of cattle/cows/bulls,pigs,chickens,goats,sheep,lamas,horses,fish,ostriches,geese,turkeys,fox,mink,rabbits and others?

Does the 'plan' reach that far yet?
let's reveal the true Poetic Irony here.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Elminister Plants do "feel" things and react accordingly. Temperature changes, ambient light source levels and relative direction of. A few species of plants react ,and rather quickly, to direct physical contact. I can offer up many scientifically supported examples of how plants produce/display sentient behaviour. Despite how rudimentary they may be interpreted by people, these actions fall within the bounds and descriptions of "experiencing sensation or feeling"

To experience suffering, an organism must possess consciousness of self. To date, science can prove that plants react reflexively...much like a human embryo/early fetus or brain dead human. No consciousness....no sufffering.

It's the stretching of what this qualities semblance should present in order to fufill ones desire,no matter how "hard-wired" it may be, to be able to connect through empathy. These rudimentary displays of sentience fall within the same genre no matter how far removed they may be from each other in terms of perceived likeness to what we humans display vs. other mammals.

The very definition of empathy denotes an ability to place oneself in the position of another to 'feel' what they are feeling. Clearly, this becomes very difficult if not impossible when we attempt to empathize with an organism that is not conscious of 'being'.....and merely appears to react reflexively.

The individual chooses ,to whatever degree, to give these actions an extent of moral consideration.

True empathy does not appear to be a choice....it is a response to observing behavior that mirrors our own behavior..the behavior 'we' exhibit while suffering.

No, it is not hard to escape this type of restricted perception. It's one of mans' finely honed traits in that being able to remove himself from a situation and analyze it and play with concepts like probability and construction of mechanisims through circumstance and relativity. Like flying a kite with a metal key tied to the string during a lightning storm

As humans, as individuals, we are always confined within the parameters of our perception.

Playing with concepts is one thing.....attempting to empathize with an organism that appears incapable of consciousness is quite another. Studies have proven that empathic ability is hard-wired into human beings...it's a skill based upon putting oneself into the position of another and attempting to 'feel' what the other would feel. This is very difficult to do re: a plant...as most humans cannot imagine how if would feel to have no sense of self...no ability to think...no brain...yet somehow be able to feel pain, fear and essentially, suffer.

We do know plants are alive and that they respond to stimuli...for many this is enough to grant plants a certain amount of consideration and respect in terms of a living thing...but beyond this...what exactly are we feeling empathy 'for' if no apparent consciousness by which to experience anything, exists?

Scientific tools and logic allow man to peer at and into items, beyond how we perceive some things when using ourselves as standards.

Absolutely...and to date the peering we've done into plants has indicated that plants lack an ability to be cognisant of self. Perhaps further 'peering' will uncover new information, but to date, plants as far as we know it, cannot think...therefore, cannot suffer.

Let me ask you this; Suppose the "extortion" of all product animals came to a stop, what then would the plans be for the sheer hordes of cattle/cows/bulls,pigs,chickens,goats,sheep,lamas,horses,fish,ostriches,geese,turkeys,fox,mink,rabbits and others? Does the 'plan' reach that far yet? let's reveal the true Poetic Irony here.

I didn't realize I'd mentioned any 'plan'.
human mental/emotional evolution is happening, but it is happening very slowly....no danger of the above scenario occuring anytime soon.

Like those of us who have difficulty feeling empathy for organisms who appear devoid of consciousness....many humans apparently have difficulty empathizing with organisms who although they have consciousness, are of a different species. No amount of shaming, or arguing is going to suddenly make these people develop empathic responses where they simply do not exist.

Animals can be protected by law, but empathy itself certainly cannot be legislated.

[Healthydose]

Because they are not people. Should they treated with kindness? Of course. They also have no soul. The animals were called into existence, whereas God personally created man, and gave him a soul. If you do not believe in the Bible that's fine with me. God does not force people to do anything. He only wants the unforced worship of those who really love Him. Yes, I know there are many fakes who call themselves Christians who wouldn't know God if he was standing beside them.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Healthydose Because they are not people. Should they treated with kindness? Of course. They also have no soul. The animals were called into existence, whereas God personally created man, and gave him a soul. If you do not believe in the Bible that's fine with me. God does not force people to do anything. He only wants the unforced worship of those who really love Him.

And what shred of evidence do you submit that God loves anybody except himself, if he exists?

I think the Ancient Egyptians got it about right - they worshipped cats...

At least a cat loves you back if you treat it right.

[Healthydose]

Of course there is no evidence. At least none you would accept. If you could actually prove Gods existence then you would HAVE to believe in Him. Which is why He won't do it. For the same reason He won't allow Noahs ark to be found. You would HAVE to believe that the flood actually took place, or be considered an idiot for not believing the evidence staring you in the face.

Look, whether you believe, or not that's fine. I'm not the door knocker type who gets in your face to try and make you change. I just follow the Guide Book. If somebody ASKS me questions then I'll answer, my co-workers, neighbors and such, but I don't go looking.

Oh, just in case you're wondering how I got here. The original diet given by God was fruits, nuts, grains, and vegatables, after the Fall. Meat was given his stamp of approval after the Flood, but with the stipulation that all the blood and fat must be taken out. I've tried it and it's like eating paper : / plus it's a LOT OF WORK.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Healthydose Of course there is no evidence. At least none you would accept. If you could actually prove Gods existence then you would HAVE to believe in Him. Which is why He won't do it. For the same reason He won't allow Noahs ark to be found. You would HAVE to believe that the flood actually took place, or be considered an idiot for not believing the evidence staring you in the face.

So God plays childish guessing games with us - I'm a bit old for that so I'll pass if you don't mind.

I never did see the logic in such tests anyway - if God is so wonderful, what does He care whether we believe in him or not? If God was as full of love as he'd supposed to be, he would not devise such infantile tricks to trip us up - and would want a proper adult relationship with us, as befits our human dignity.

And if we fail - what happens to us? - do we just put it down to experience and move on - or are we forced to resign ourselves to God's particularly nasty sin-bin - everlasting hell as a punishment for our very human failings? What a nightmare it all is.

Look, whether you believe, or not that's fine. I'm not the door knocker type who gets in your face to try and make you change.

No; you do it on the internet instead - means less legwork, I guess.

Oh, just in case you're wondering how I got here.

Err... no, actually...

The original diet given by God was fruits, nuts, grains, and vegatables, after the Fall. Meat was given his stamp of approval after the Flood, but with the stipulation that all the blood and fat must be taken out.

God the Divine Dietician, you mean? He sure likes to get involved... (or used to when he was around).

I've tried it and it's like eating paper : plus it's a LOT OF WORK.

I started a thread once suggesting that theists always tried to avoid intellectual hard - are you now telling me that even chewing your food is too much of a challenge?

[Healthydose]

Dietician? Well, He did create us, so He knows whats best for us to eat.

"chewing your food..." I was refering to the time required to get the blood and fat out.

Like I said, I don't go knocking. See, you came on. :)

Perpective: Evidence given then... accept or not. I choose to accept. You do not. God does not force either way. You should be glad it's a freewill decision.

As for everlasting, eternal Hell. That is not Biblical, nor does it exist....right now. And when it does begin it will be temporary. Remember the fake "christians" the ones who don't read the Guide Book. Well, they got that part all wrong and don't know it because they don't read for themselves. Just sit in a pew a few hours a week and think they are okay. Sad, quite sad.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Healthydose Dietician? Well, He did create us, so He knows whats best for us to eat.

You believe that and I'll stick to the more probable answers that evolution provides.

"chewing your food..." I was refering to the time required to get the blood and fat out.

I hope you saved the blood for Yahweh - the bible says he loves the smell of it.

Like I said, I don't go knocking. See, you came on.

"No Proselytising" so say the rules. I think your posts come perilously close to that.

Perpective: Evidence given then... accept or not. I choose to accept. You do not. God does not force either way. You should be glad it's a freewill decision.

I'm glad that I find the philosophical principles I adhere to far more satisfying, to be honest - they don't require me to compromise whole swathes of my reasoning ability to make sense of Life.

Remember the fake "christians" the ones who don't read the Guide Book.

So being literate is a qualification for your heaven?

Well, they got that part all wrong and don't know it because they don't read for themselves. Just sit in a pew a few hours a week and think they are okay.

And yet the Gospels tell you repeatedly that you are saved by nothing but faith in Jesus? If so, Sitting in a pew and quietly believing seems an exemplary thing to do - there'd no place for intellect of any kind in God's plan for salvation as far as I can tell...

Sad, quite sad.

You said it...

[Healthydose]

See, like I've already said. You choose not to believe, that's fine. I'll not argue the point. I choose to believe. Let's leave it at that, since neither will convice the other.

I assume that possibly part of your derision comes from seeing mostly "fakers", and the in your face types.

Well, good day. It has been a nice discussion, compared to many others who can't control their verbal
attacks.