Vegetarianism

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Reputable researchers do not waste their time on this because they already know that plants do not have the equipment to feel pain -- e.g. no nerve endings and no central nervous systems to process it. In some cases they may have some sense mechanism that cause them to react in some way, but that is a far jump from automata reaction to to declaring a sense of pain. That is why researchers do not attribute pain or suffering to automata reaction no different than not attributing pain to your door bell just because you push it and then it reacts with automata by performing a function of sound -- even if you smash it with a sledge hammer.

I'm not sure if you know this, but humans have 5 senses. None of them being pain. Pain is what we feel. Suffering is a feeling. Feeling is one of our senses and because plants can sense(I'm talking about the feeling sense) something touching it, it can then defend itself, and react to it's feelings. Thus, since one can relate pain to feeling, it is a possibility that plants feel pain. I don't need reputable documents to show this. I only need to show documents to show proof. You have no proof to disprove me, therefore, neither of us can be right or wrong till it has been proven.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kubedawg, do you think one should at least strive to cause the least amount of suffering from the choices available when it comes to diet -- if in fact we do accept that suffering in some form is inevitable and unavoidable?

Yes. Now that I know the acronym AW, I agree with it, and I would call myself an AWist, but only an ARist to a certain extent, meaning animals and plants are not equal to human beings, but they should still be treated in a manner that they do not suffer or they suffer the least if being made into a meal for a human. I do not agree with torturing animals, and that they should have a healthy environment to live in until they die.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 AKA "the slaughtering process"... Anything that positively effects the carrying out of the slaughtering, which includes production of animals to slaughter, is a part of the process.

No, slaughter is only the process of killing the animal. meat production means the living conditions up to and including the slaughter.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: kubedawg No, slaughter is only the process of killing the animal. meat production means the living conditions up to and including the slaughter.

Process of killing an animal = Production of animal - Death of animal.

Look up process.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Process of killing an animal = Production of animal - Death of animal. Look up process.

No need, because I already know what it means...

You are wrong, process of killing an animal is not the same as production. Therefore, slaughter = process = ONLY the killing of the animal.

And since you obviously don't know the different between the words process and production, I'll spare you the time, and define them for you:

Process relates to the verb, slaughtering or killing an animal.

Production relates to numerous processes to complete an objective, IE, to manufacture.

Therefore, you saying that the process of slaughtering of an animal is not the same as meat production.

I reiterate, you are wrong.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So you are admitting that you want to legalize your subjective opinion, and impose it onto others.

Laws when passed through the legislative process making them legal impose certain forms of behaviour and limits on us all.

Fine, it's my opinion that everyone should wear purple jumpsuits on sundays, tuesdays, and thursdays, and be completely nude on government holidays.

And you are free to persue that agenda through lobbying officials and starting a grassroots campaign to enact that -- after all, you live in a democracy, and that gives you the right to try and move things on the spectrum of what is permitted or not permitted through politics -- either supporting a party in existance to help you achieve your goals or create a new one -- or step up and be the leader of your group or support someone who shares the same goal.

I wish you luck, but I think you are far behind the AR Movement. Get in line or be very diligent and jump to the front.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Thing is, I'm not debating the effectiveness of Ghandi's words.

Doesn`t matter. You either deal with them or any other quote someone puts forth in debate you are engaged in, or you ignore them. Either way the debate audience will still be exposed to them and they are more of the target than you.

If they aren't appeal to authority, and if they don't effect the argument, then they are irrelevant.

The argument in debate has its affect on each person of the audience differently, depending on how they perceive what is put forth. You have no way of gauging what is effectively affecting the audience or not. So, why they, or a point may be irrelevant to you in influencing your opinion, it may be quite relevant to another following along. You alone are not my target.

I will be deleting anything referring to anyone who you view as an an authority on the subject, if it has to do with their subjective opinion.

Huh!? You mean you have deleting ability? You are not a mod, are you? Oh, you mean ignoring, right? Kind of what children do when they stick their fingers in their ears and scream, "I can`t hear you" when they are trying to block something out, right? Is that what you mean?

I don`t mind. The audience is enough for me if you can`t handle it. I know you can`t delete it to keep them from seeing and considering it. <smile>

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg ... it is a possibility that plants feel pain.

Scientists do not make conclusions on what is possible. They make conclusions on facts, and where the facts are not 100% certain, they rely on what is most probable with the available body of information.

I don't need reputable documents to show this. I only need to show documents to show proof.

What!? You mean just so long as something is written down and called a document, despite not being identified as reputable, it can stand as proof? I am wondering if other forum members would agree with that. This is the first time I have ever heard such a statement!

You have no proof to disprove me, therefore, neither of us can be right or wrong till it has been proven.

I don`t need to disprove what is possible. Up until now reputible scientists amongst their peers do not consider plants as a life form that suffers or feels pain. I am standing with them, and you have not found any large number of scientist operating on your "possibility that plants feel pain" assertion.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kubedawg, do you think one should at least strive to cause the least amount of suffering from the choices available when it comes to diet -- if in fact we do accept that suffering in some form is inevitable and unavoidable?

Yes.

Well, then you should know more plant life dies (and possibly suffers more <wink>) in the production of meat than if plant life were to directly to end use consumers. Adding a step between to create calories is value added and results in the production of less calories than what goes into it. Therefore, choosing a vegetarian diet causes less suffering if you are going to cling to plants can feel pain.

... they[life that can suffer or feel pain] should still be treated in a manner that they do not suffer or they suffer the least if being made into a meal for a human.

I do not agree with torturing animals,...

What constitutes "torture" to you?

...and that they should have a healthy environment to live in until they die.

What constitutes a "healthy environment" to you? and if you can`t inspect all the animal raising facilities from birth to death and slaughter where your meat comes from, how would you insure that what you eat did not or does not come from a facility that is not in accordance to your belief? I mean, if you go to a Mcd`s or any other fast food restaurant, or your grandma`s house or some place 20 miles from where you are, or eat a meal on an airline flight, or eat a pepperoni pizza dilivered to your house-- how do you know that your wishes are being met in how that meat was produced? and if you can`t know, why take the risk of rewarding a system with financial gain that is in opposition to your beliefs?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg And since you obviously don't know the different between the words process and production, I'll spare you the time, and define them for you:

LOL! I`m with you on this one, Kubedawg. Kamehameha does have a problem with correct word usage as it pertains to their definitions. He also doesn`t understand the difference between "value" and "truth."

lol.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Laws when passed through the legislative process making them legal impose certain forms of behaviour and limits on us all.

You could follow through with your own views and let those around you live without such silly laws.

And you are free to persue that agenda through lobbying officials and starting a grassroots campaign to enact that -- after all, you live in a democracy, and that gives you the right to try and move things on the spectrum of what is permitted or not permitted through politics -- either supporting a party in existance to help you achieve your goals or create a new one -- or step up and be the leader of your group or support someone who shares the same goal. I wish you luck, but I think you are far behind the AR Movement. Get in line or be very diligent and jump to the front.

So, logically, your "movement" is comparable to forcing everyone to wear purple jumpsuits on arbitrary days and disallowing clothes on government holidays, and you are admitting that.

All I needed to know.

[Jack]

Let's stick to the topic and not get sidetracked with a separate debate on Ghandi or personal comments.

[pahl]

To pick up from where we left of:

Fine. Because we are the dominant race.

Might makes right. Precisely what i wanted to get at. When we look close enough thats the argument we are left with.

And if "might makes right", then how can you defend punishing a person for killing another? Or think badly of a country for invading another? They have the power to do it, therefore it is right. You cant argue a killer did something wrong.

The concept of power equals right negates the whole concept of right and wrong.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: pahl And if "might makes right", then how can you defend punishing a person for killing another? Or think badly of a country for invading another? They have the power to do it, therefore it is right. You cant argue a killer did something wrong. The concept of power equals right negates the whole concept of right and wrong.

Well, that person who killed another was acting with individualist interests or at least the interests of another culture, which is in opposition to the culture of the person killed and thus the culture of the people wanting to punish the murderer. And you would only think badly of the country invading another if that invader is against your culture in any way.

Intersubjective ethics, though, is the pattern. Each culture thinks its idea of right/wrong is objective and absolute, although in the broader sense, their ideas are just subjective and relativistic. What's the only way to maximize the extent of that ethical system? By expanding the culture.

So, in the broader sense, it might be bad that humans have more might than animals, but it's good for us I guess.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Scientists do not make conclusions on what is possible. They make conclusions on facts, and where the facts are not 100% certain, they rely on what is most probable with the available body of information.

So you admit that scientists base their conclusions on possibility as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but probability is only possibility that has the odds to be in favor of plants not being able to feel. Odds doesn't make fact. And I know we can continue on and on about this, I mean, even you brought up what are the odds of little green men living under the surface of the Earth's crust, and now I will reply, because we can see plants, because we know plants exist, and because they have the ability to sense touch/feel, it is not reidiculous to state that plants might be able to feel/suffer, even if the odds are stacked against that theory.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I don`t need to disprove what is possible. Up until now reputible scientists amongst their peers do not consider plants as a life form that suffers or feels pain. I am standing with them, and you have not found any large number of scientist operating on your "possibility that plants feel pain" assertion.

Right, you have every right to believe in the probability vs. the possibility. That's fine, but I don't need to prove what is possible either because it's a theory. Your side which is backed by scientists also have a theory. That's what you have when you don't have facts. And it's a known fact that facts change over time. So, go ahead, believe your scientists, I don't need a degree in science to be able to strike my own theory, or agree with one that has already been questioned elsewhere. Until you have facts, your theory ist still neither provable or disprovable, just like my theory.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Well, then you should know more plant life dies (and possibly suffers more <wink>) in the production of meat than if plant life were to directly to end use consumers. Adding a step between to create calories is value added and results in the production of less calories than what goes into it. Therefore, choosing a vegetarian diet causes less suffering if you are going to cling to plants can feel pain.

But those plants are there to feed the animals so they can live. If the meat market ceased to exist, so would the production of the meat, and that would also cease some of the plants to not be born as well as many animals. Therefore, by not having a meat market, you create an equal chain of reaction that causes animals and plants not to be born. Well you should know that if an animal doesn't eat, it will starve and die. Feeding it, will ensure it's survival until time for it's slaughter. The plants only ensure the animal is kept alive so I can eat it. Vegetarians remove the meat out of the picture, and still eat plants. And I think more plant life is consumed by vegetarians than animal life is by meat eaters because meat eaters can eat the meat, maybe some veggies, but that is less lives taken away than a vegetarian consumes in plant life.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin What constitutes "torture" to you?

Mistreating of animals up until the death of them. If possible, have a painless death, or cause the least amount of suffering during that process.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin What constitutes a "healthy environment" to you? and if you can`t inspect all the animal raising facilities from birth to death and slaughter where your meat comes from, how would you insure that what you eat did not or does not come from a facility that is not in accordance to your belief? I mean, if you go to a Mcd`s or any other fast food restaurant, or your grandma`s house or some place 20 miles from where you are, or eat a meal on an airline flight, or eat a pepperoni pizza dilivered to your house-- how do you know that your wishes are being met in how that meat was produced? and if you can`t know, why take the risk of rewarding a system with financial gain that is in opposition to your beliefs?

How do I know the meat production factory is not meeting my expectations? Good question. I don't know. I trust my money will go to good use, and if it's not, then we need to see how these factories are run, and to make them better if possible.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pahl To pick up from where we left of: Might makes right. Precisely what i wanted to get at. When we look close enough thats the argument we are left with. And if "might makes right", then how can you defend punishing a person for killing another? Or think badly of a country for invading another? They have the power to do it, therefore it is right. You cant argue a killer did something wrong. The concept of power equals right negates the whole concept of right and wrong.

Right and wrong, or morals, are subjective. Someone may believe that killing people is wrong, but be fine with eating meat. It is their subjective decision, which is precisely why one subjective opinions shouldn't be imposed upon everyone. The only immoral subjective decisions are those that actively harm other humans, which is an opinion that our government is based around.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you can't expect me to adhere to it because you think that it is the only moral one.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You could follow through with your own views and let those around you live without such silly laws. So, logically, your "movement" is comparable to forcing everyone to wear purple jumpsuits on arbitrary days and disallowing clothes on government holidays, and you are admitting that. All I needed to know.

So you are against laws altogether? Because all laws were all once movements such as the abolition of slavery, women's ability to vote. So you're saying we should not give black people the same rights as white people, and support suffrage?

Nice job burying yourself deep in a hole.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: kubedawg So you are against laws altogether? Because all laws were all once movements such as the abolition of slavery, women's ability to vote. So you're saying we should not give black people the same rights as white people, and support suffrage?

Governments are made to protect the rights of the people.

Nice job burying yourself deep in a hole.

Hardly.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Governments are made to protect the rights of the people.

The Legislative branch is in charge for putting new laws into effect. Now, who often makes these laws? Remember now, laws often come from movements. That's right, the people. The citizens. So the citizens are responsible for continuing the laws, otherwise someone who also has citizenship might try to remove the law based on their opinion. The government is there to protect the constitutional rights of the people, not the laws within it. Because everything changes, therefore, laws should change to fit the current changes.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Hardly.

No, it's quite deep. Here's a shovel, maybe before this is all said and done, you might reach China.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: kubedawg The Legislative branch is in charge for putting new laws into effect. Now, who often makes these laws? Remember now, laws often come from movements. That's right, the people. The citizens. So the citizens are responsible for continuing the laws, otherwise someone who also has citizenship might try to remove the law based on their opinion. The government is there to protect the constitutional rights of the people, not the laws within it. Because everything changes, therefore, laws should change to fit the current changes.

Laws are here to protect the people. That's what governments are for. Animals are not people. You dodged my assertion.

No, it's quite deep. Here's a shovel, maybe before this is all said and done, you might reach China.

How old are you?

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Laws are here to protect the people. That's what governments are for. Animals are not people. You dodged my assertion.

So you're saying it's alright for an owner to torture it's pet dog to kick it around and abuse it? You're saying it's alright for animals to be hurt on the account of a human being angry? By you saying animals have no rights give bad humans the ability to treat animals as poorly as they want to. There was a news story that happened probably 10 years ago but I still remeber it vividly, where this owner tied his dalmatian dog to a tree and started beating the crap out of it until it died with a baseball bat. Laws should be enforced to protect the welfare of animals of all kinds.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How old are you?

What does it matter? My comment about you digging yourself into a hole is just as absurd as yours about purple jumpsuits...