David Guiza Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 So, why is it fine to kill plants but not animals? Really? http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/video/titles/12151/do-plants-respond-to-pain - plants respond to pain, and respond to threats... What point are you making here, may I ask? Even vegans have to eat plant based products otherwise they wouldn't survive. At the end of the day, you have to make sacrifices. It has been proven for years now that humans can survive without animal based products, that's not the case for plants. That doesn't make somebody a hypocrite in the slightest, you've got to put your health first. If there was a way in which no living organism could be harmed and a person could live a long and healthy life then I'm sure many would follow suit.
Strokes Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 Any veggie I have ever come across, are just attention seeking little pussìes. They bítch and moan, I would eat them if it were legal.
The Doctor Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 That video doesn't prove they feel pain. They respond to external stimuli, including damage to them - that's pretty much how feeling pain works. What point are you making here, may I ask? Even vegans have to eat plant based products otherwise they wouldn't survive. At the end of the day, you have to make sacrifices. It has been proven for years now that humans can survive without animal based products, that's not the case for plants. That doesn't make somebody a hypocrite in the slightest, you've got to put your health first. If there was a way in which no living organism could be harmed and a person could live a long and healthy life then I'm sure many would follow suit. my point is that people who go "don't hurt the animals" but are content to harm plants are very much hypocrites. What we see is them undermining their own arguments - animals are no more special than plants. If you want to argue that you shouldn't hurt anything - be a fruitarian, otherwise accept that you're a hypocrite.
David Guiza Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 They respond to external stimuli, including damage to them - that's pretty much how feeling pain works. my point is that people who go "don't hurt the animals" but are content to harm plants are very much hypocrites. What we see is them undermining their own arguments - animals are no more special than plants. If you want to argue that you shouldn't hurt anything - be a fruitarian, otherwise accept that you're a hypocrite. As you originally raised science to the debate, scientifically speaking a plant based food is not a sentient being, no emotional inclination to avoid bodily harm or death (as animals do) and does not have a nervous system. I understand your argument, but I completely disagree. Whether you consider somebody a hypocrite for distinguishing between an animal with a conscience, emotion and nervous system, and a plant, is down to you. But, personally I don't.
Mark_w Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 They respond to external stimuli, including damage to them - that's pretty much how feeling pain works. my point is that people who go "don't hurt the animals" but are content to harm plants are very much hypocrites. What we see is them undermining their own arguments - animals are no more special than plants. If you want to argue that you shouldn't hurt anything - be a fruitarian, otherwise accept that you're a hypocrite. No it's not. There is an emotional element to pain, animals have emotions, plants don't.
The Doctor Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 As you originally raised science to the debate, scientifically speaking a plant based food is not a sentient being, no emotional inclination to avoid bodily harm or death (as animals do) and does not have a nervous system. I understand your argument, but I completely disagree. Whether you consider somebody a hypocrite for distinguishing between an animal with a conscience, emotion and nervous system, and a plant, is down to you. But, personally I don't. Plenty would argue that plants are sentient - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/ and while it doesn't have a traditional nervous system in terms of neurons etc, it does have a nervous system - the electrical activity of it in response to being exposed to external stimuli is part of that. No it's not. There is an emotional element to pain, animals have emotions, plants don't. No there isn't - pain is simply the feeling of unpleasant stimuli.
Mark_w Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 No there isn't - pain is simply the feeling of unpleasant stimuli. Unpleasant. Don't you have to have emotions to determine that something is unpleasant? Can you prove that a plant can find something unpleasant?
The Doctor Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 Unpleasant. Don't you have to have emotions to determine that something is unpleasant? Can you prove that a plant can find something unpleasant? Stimuli that would damage the plant - like a caterpillar eating it, or fire burning it - that's stimuli that would be unpleasant - that's true of humans, animals and plants, emotions only come into it for people when we talk of psychological pain, but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about physical pain
Mark_w Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 Stimuli that would damage the plant - like a caterpillar eating it, or fire burning it - that's stimuli that would be unpleasant - that's true of humans, animals and plants, emotions only come into it for people when we talk of psychological pain, but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about physical pain It may have a negative impact on the plant, but you can't prove that it's unpleasant to the plant (and it isn't because plants don't find things unpleasant). You can prove that fire for example would be unpleasant to an animal or a human. 'Pain' as you would see it causes a conscious emotional response in animals and humans, and doesn't in plants. That for me, is the difference. To pretend that there's no difference at all is laughable really.
The Doctor Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 It may have a negative impact on the plant, but you can't prove that it's unpleasant to the plant (and it isn't because plants don't find things unpleasant). You can prove that fire for example would be unpleasant to an animal or a human. 'Pain' as you would see it causes a conscious emotional response in animals and humans, and doesn't in plants. That for me, is the difference. To pretend that there's no difference at all is laughable really. Are you arguing for the sake of it, or are you really this stupid? Unpleasant stimuli in reference to pain refers to stimuli that cause physical damage.
Mark_w Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 Are you arguing for the sake of it, or are you really this stupid? Unpleasant stimuli in reference to pain refers to stimuli that cause physical damage. My point still stands, animals have a conscious emotional response to that damage, and plants don't. They aren't the same.
Rincewind Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 How do you know? Not saying they do but there are some strange plants in the world. Some prey on animals and even lay traps. All life has a DNO code which originated from the same early life.
Houdini Logic Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 What point are you making here, may I ask? Even vegans have to eat plant based products otherwise they wouldn't survive. At the end of the day, you have to make sacrifices. It has been proven for years now that humans can survive without animal based products, that's not the case for plants. That doesn't make somebody a hypocrite in the slightest, you've got to put your health first. If there was a way in which no living organism could be harmed and a person could live a long and healthy life then I'm sure many would follow suit. Agree that we need plants to survive but if you grow all your own food you're guaranteed no insects were murdered in the process. So if you don't grow your own food and instead rely on going to the supermarket to buy asparagus then really what's the difference between that and someone going to the supermarket to buy a beef burger? Unless you value different animal's lives differently
David Guiza Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 Agree that we need plants to survive but if you grow all your own food you're guaranteed no insects were murdered in the process. So if you don't grow your own food and instead rely on going to the supermarket to buy asparagus then really what's the difference between that and someone going to the supermarket to buy a beef burger? Unless you value different animal's lives differently I agree with the growing your own food, but many people don't have those facilities available to them, or at least at this moment in time. The best you can do is only purchase products that you can be assured are as ethically sourced as possible I guess. I wouldn't value any animals life differently, I personally find it hypocritical that much of the world eats cows, chickens, pigs etc and at the same time treats their cat and dog as if it were one of the family.
kingcarr21 Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 Bestiality vet Oliver Lown struck off The disciplinary committee heard Oliver Lown trained as a vet at a university in Hungary A vet who was filmed having sex with a horse and a dog has been struck off his profession's register. Oliver Fraser Lown of Kesgrave, Suffolk was found guilty of five charges by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) disciplinary committee. Videos were found in his possession showing him engaging in sexual activity with animals, as were extreme images of animals and people, the RCVS heard. Lown, believed to be in his 20s, has never practised as a vet in the UK. 'Total lack of respect' The RCVS panel heard that in 2012 he pleaded guilty at Northallerton and Richmond Magistrates Court in North Yorkshire to seven criminal charges relating to the possession of extreme images involving people and animals, for which he was given a conditional discharge. Each of the charges individually amounts to disgraceful conduct” End Quote Prof Noreen Burrows The RCVS committee heard the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute him in respect of a bestiality charge that it was considering, but the RCVS found the charge to be proven. Lown had graduated from the Szent Istvan University in Budapest, Hungary and he had been registered with the RCVS in 2013, the committee heard. Lown did not attend the RCVS hearing in London, but he was represented by a solicitor. Three of the charges related to the discovery of images or videos on a laptop and a mobile phone at his home near Ipswich. Another charge related to footage of him engaging in sexual activity with a horse and a dog, while a fifth charge related to him sending messages that referred to sexual activity with animals. Prof Noreen Burrows, chairing the committee, said: "The material found in possession of the respondent and his own conduct... involved the abuse of animals and a total lack of respect for their welfare. "In the judgement of the committee, each of the charges individually amounts to disgraceful conduct and the charges certainly amount to disgraceful conduct when taken cumulatively." Just thought id throw this into the cauldron.
Houdini Logic Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 I agree with the growing your own food, but many people don't have those facilities available to them, or at least at this moment in time. The best you can do is only purchase products that you can be assured are as ethically sourced as possible I guess. I wouldn't value any animals life differently, I personally find it hypocritical that much of the world eats cows, chickens, pigs etc and at the same time treats their cat and dog as if it were one of the family. Don't have the facilities? Buy a patch of pasture land for less than £1k and live there in your tent and happily live a life growing your own food and not harming animals. Suddenly that seems inconvenient? It's all about where you draw the line and if you're not prepared to do the above then you have no right to have a go at someone because they decide to eat meat because regardless of how you dress it up you will be contributing to the death of many animals through being a passenger in a car, eating crops, etc, etc
Captain... Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 No it's not. There is an emotional element to pain, animals have emotions, plants don't. Oh really:
David Guiza Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 Don't have the facilities? Buy a patch of pasture land for less than £1k and live there in your tent and happily live a life growing your own food and not harming animals. Suddenly that seems inconvenient? It's all about where you draw the line and if you're not prepared to do the above then you have no right to have a go at someone because they decide to eat meat because regardless of how you dress it up you will be contributing to the death of many animals through being a passenger in a car, eating crops, etc, etc So it's gone from trying not to consume the meat of an animal to living in a tent? You're correct, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I haven't 'had a go' at anyone for eating meat, I also haven't noticed anybody else do so on this thread either. I have merely stated that it is possible to live a long, healthy and happy life without eating meat. Regardless of how hypocritical it would be, if somebody decided not to eat meat on Sunday's it's still helping to save the lives of an animal in the long run,. Much the same as anything else in this world, it's all about supply and demand. Not all vegetarians/vegans are smug do gooders, a quick Google search would tell you that a large number of celebrities are some form of vegetarian, from Russell Brand and Mike Tyson to Ellie Goulding and Morrissey.
Manwell Pablo Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 So it's gone from trying not to consume the meat of an animal to living in a tent? You're correct, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I haven't 'had a go' at anyone for eating meat, I also haven't noticed anybody else do so on this thread either. I have merely stated that it is possible to live a long, healthy and happy life without eating meat. Regardless of how hypocritical it would be, if somebody decided not to eat meat on Sunday's it's still helping to save the lives of an animal in the long run,. Much the same as anything else in this world, it's all about supply and demand. Not all vegetarians/vegans are smug do gooders, a quick Google search would tell you that a large number of celebrities are some form of vegetarian, from Russell Brand and Mike Tyson to Ellie Goulding and Morrissey. You've not read it all then .
David Guiza Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 You've not read it all then . Correct , not sure I have it in me to read 48pages of that. I was referring to since I first posted on the topic.
OzFox Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 All life has a DNO code which originated from the same early life. A Down Not Out code? Is that a Freudian slip?
Finnegan Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 Am I right in thinking Rubicon Mango? Rubicon Passion! Throw some cheese on it.
Merging Cultures Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 I get being veggie for health reasons, I really do. But because you have an ethical problem with it.... Having said THAT I stopped eating lamb for years, cos I thought it was cruel to eat something that hadn't lived very long.... but then I realised it tastes lovely! Which makes me ask the question, why is much more fuss made about veal, than lamb? Surely it's a similar thing? Although I've never had veal. Veal is lovely. Very tender. I don't get the fuss these days. The transport and housing of animals has improved. Mind you, I also like foie gras, so I'm probably not a good reference point for judging animal welfare!
Houdini Logic Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 You're correct, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I haven't 'had a go' at anyone for eating meat, I also haven't noticed anybody else do so on this thread either. I have merely stated that it is possible to live a long, healthy and happy life without eating meat. Including fish? Regardless of how hypocritical it would be, if somebody decided not to eat meat on Sunday's it's still helping to save the lives of an animal in the long run,. Much the same as anything else in this world, it's all about supply and demand. Not all vegetarians/vegans are smug do gooders, a quick Google search would tell you that a large number of celebrities are some form of vegetarian, from Russell Brand and Mike Tyson to Ellie Goulding and Morrissey. If you do anything in life because of a celebrity does it then you're in trouble...
Manwell Pablo Posted 29 July 2014 Posted 29 July 2014 Including fish? If you do anything in life because of a celebrity does it then you're in trouble... Especially if one of them is a vegetarian that eats ears.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.