PETA party

[Slimething]

The same reason killing a vegetable is more humane than killing a human.

And that reason would be?

 

[Slimething]

Are plants sentient? Do they feel pain? Are they mistreated the way farm animals are?

The closest they come is some sort of cellular chemical changes in response to stimuli (at least some people think, but perhaps not), but it they do not spend a lifetime suffering in pain the way your food does.

In light of this, which is most humane way to eat? Why wouldn't you start with this question and then try and act in accordance with your answer? The problem with responding with your question when challenged about the mistreatment of animals is that you're not abstaining from eating plants as a response, you're ignoring the issue altogether. "It's all cruel, therefore I'll eat whatever".

Lots of assumptions in your reply. How do you know that plant's can't fee pain? Sentient or not, the definition of inhumane is something that causes unnecessary pain. So, post something that convinces me that plants do not feel pain when killed.

Please post evidence that my food suffers its entire life. Any. Really. Maybe yours does. I have no idea. Anthropomorphize much?

The most humane way to eat is eating food that's dead. No pain involved.

 

[Slimething]

We should put your big brain to use on discovering a cure for malaria, or solving this North Korea situation.

Nice ad hom. Do you ever think before replying? What is that watermelon husk protecting anyway?

These vegans, and people in general, are so foolish for making a distinction between chickens and broccoli. I wonder why anti-cruelty laws even apply to carrots but not cats. Those evil PETArds are so foolish, and such hypocrites. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites.

Ever heard of the human proclivity to antrhopomorphize? Funny how animals with big brown eyes aren't protected by such laws, isn't it?

Please, if you try to make a point, bring forth direct and relevant evidence. Childish assumptions that laws must be correct are not good evidence.

 

[tkmikkelsen]

I'm fine if we stop breeding farm animals. That may result in extinction, but it's certainly different from saying "Let's exterminate cows!"

And no, I don't try to condemn people who kill animals for a purpose and treat them well. I've never said that.



If no one would have spoken up against the morality of the society at the time then women gays and blacks would not have progressed at all in our society, in my opinion. Susan B. Anthony didn't go around espousing the commonly accepted views of the day. Obviously the support of many people was necessary, but that support is built by speaking out. Saying it's useless preaching is really not correct.



What's accepted changes. And activism is a valid avenue for trying to change what's accepted.

I'm not saying I agree with PETA about everything, I just think you're being unfair to them.

Susan B. Anthony did have views that for the time was considered to be very liberal. If you read into her history, you will find out that whole slew of other liberal thinkers helped her, including her own father who got outraged when he found out that a teacher refused to teach her long division (I believe it was) because of her gender.
Her publication “The Revolution” was sponsored by the rich eccentric George Francis Train.
Though it was not main stream, society as a whole was starting to lean towards accepting women’s suffrage and she was one of the early leaders, but it is doubtful if she would have the same success just 20 or 30 years earlier.

Now Susan B. Anthony is not the topic in this thread, but rather PETA is. One of the big differences in what Susan B. Anthony did and what PETA is doing today is that her revolution was built on education and example; she actually got arrested for voting in the presidential election in 1872, subtle and very good way to get your point across.
PETA on the other hand wants to tell you how to live your life. PETA support people that do harm onto other people, because they want to force them to see things their way.
Another glaring difference between PETA and the women and blacks movement is that Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Jose Rizal and Ninoy Aquino (last 2 are references to hero’s here in the Philippines). Is that they themselves where from the oppressed group and all of them, with the exception of Malcolm X, used education and non violence as their revolutionary methods.
PETA is mostly made up of suburban or urban middle class people that simply need something more interesting to do with their life than going to the mall.

You say I am unfair towards PETA and you are right about that. I am biased as anything against PETA, just like I am biased and very skeptical towards any group that is mostly made up from upper and middle class people and is trying to force people to see it their way.

At the end I would to say, that even though we have a different view. I like that you don’t resort to giving one line replies, which you cannot back up, as is too often seen on the JREF boards. Kudos to you.

 

[Meed]

Lots of assumptions in your reply. How do you know that plant's can't fee pain? Sentient or not, the definition of inhumane is something that causes unnecessary pain. So, post something that convinces me that plants do not feel pain when killed.

You realize that pain occurs in the brain don't you?

 

[Meed]

Susan B. Anthony did have views that for the time was considered to be very liberal. If you read into her history, you will find out that whole slew of other liberal thinkers helped her, including her own father who got outraged when he found out that a teacher refused to teach her long division (I believe it was) because of her gender.
Her publication “The Revolution” was sponsored by the rich eccentric George Francis Train.
Though it was not main stream, society as a whole was starting to lean towards accepting women’s suffrage and she was one of the early leaders, but it is doubtful if she would have the same success just 20 or 30 years earlier.

Now Susan B. Anthony is not the topic in this thread, but rather PETA is. One of the big differences in what Susan B. Anthony did and what PETA is doing today is that her revolution was built on education and example; she actually got arrested for voting in the presidential election in 1872, subtle and very good way to get your point across.

PETA on the other hand wants to tell you how to live your life. PETA support people that do harm onto other people, because they want to force them to see things their way.
Another glaring difference between PETA and the women and blacks movement is that Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Jose Rizal and Ninoy Aquino (last 2 are references to hero’s here in the Philippines). Is that they themselves where from the oppressed group and all of them, with the exception of Malcolm X, used education and non violence as their revolutionary methods.

PETA is mostly made up of suburban or urban middle class people that simply need something more interesting to do with their life than going to the mall.

None of these differences are relevant to the argument you made, which was that "preaching" is useless and bad. And who cares whether members of PETA are middle class? That doesn't make them wrong.

You say I am unfair towards PETA and you are right about that. I am biased as anything against PETA, just like I am biased and very skeptical towards any group that is mostly made up from upper and middle class people and is trying to force people to see it their way.

At the end I would to say, that even though we have a different view. I like that you don’t resort to giving one line replies, which you cannot back up, as is too often seen on the JREF boards. Kudos to you.

Cheers. You're pleasant to debate with also.

 

[Meed]

Slimething, am I to take it you're opposed to all animal cruelty laws?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You realize that pain occurs in the brain don't you?

How do you know? How do you know what a carrot experiences without being a carrot?

 

[Meed]

How do you know?

Basic bio-psychology. I thought everyone knew that.

How do you know what a carrot experiences without being a carrot?

If pain exists outside of brains, science knows nothing about it. You may as well ask how I know a fairy doesn't die every time I masturbate. I can't prove it's not true, but I have absolutely no reason to think so.

ETA: Same question, PhantomWolf. Are you opposed to all animal cruelty laws?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Basic bio-psychology. I thought everyone knew that.

Except that when we move out of the Animal kingdom we have no idea what is going on with a living thing, and even in the animal kingdom we have difficulty knowing it.

If pain exists outside of brains, science knows nothing about it. You may as well ask how I know a fairy doesn't die every time I masturbate. I can't prove it's not true, but I have absolutely no reason to think so.

Except there is evidence that plants have some form of sensation and the ability to respond to that sensation. Check out the Acadia tree and how it reacts to grazing animals.

ETA: Same question, PhantomWolf. Are you opposed to all animal cruelty laws?

I have no problem with the laws and oppose animal cruelty as well, however I suspect that what I consider cruelty and what the likes of PETA do are two rather different things.

 

[Cain]

Nice ad hom. Do you ever think before replying? What is that watermelon husk protecting anyway?

I suggest you consult these terms before using them, especially if you are going to abbreviate the Latin. An ad hominem is attack against the person in lieu of an attack on the argument. As for the watermelon husk... that is an avatar. Would you also like me to explain avatars?

Funny how animals with big brown eyes aren't protected by such laws, isn't it?

Animals with big brown eyes tend to be protected. Do you pay attention to your words before replying?

Please, if you try to make a point, bring forth direct and relevant evidence. Childish assumptions that laws must be correct are not good evidence.

I see, you cannot challenge the distinction so call it a "childish assumption." The vast majority of people make a distinction between carrots and cats on the grounds the latter can experience pain. Now maybe that's false: maybe carrots can experience pain, maybe neither cats nor carrots can experience pain, or maybe pain should not figure into such laws at all, but that's the dominant view we're up against (and I would argue that it's the dominant view because it's the most sensible one).

In your response to Unaboogie, you ask for evidence that plants do NOT feel pain, and let's for a moment suppose he can somehow demonstrate to your satisfaction there's no reason to believe such a thing. Does that mean you will agree it's morally preferable to eat plants rather than animals? I doubt it, because in my experience people on your side with your temperament quickly find they do not have many strong arguments at their disposal so they're reduced to raising frivolous, time-consuming objections.

I think Cornail's question demands an answer before proceeding any further: do you oppose all animal cruelty laws? If not, why not?

 

[Drudgewire]

Did someone say "party?" I'll bring the veal meatballs.

 

[Meed]

Except that when we move out of the Animal kingdom we have no idea what is going on with a living thing, and even in the animal kingdom we have difficulty knowing it.

Sure we do. I was forced to learn what goes on inside plants to a ridiculous level of detail when I took biology.

Except there is evidence that plants have some form of sensation and the ability to respond to that sensation. Check out the Acadia tree and how it reacts to grazing animals.

Not relevant. Pain goes on in the brain, not the peripheral nervous system.

I have no problem with the laws and oppose animal cruelty as well, however I suspect that what I consider cruelty and what the likes of PETA do are two rather different things.

Do you also oppose vegetable cruelty, since you don't seem to see a difference?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sure we do. I was forced to learn what goes on inside plants to a ridiculous level of detail when I took biology.

At least what we guess and assume goes on inside plants. Without being able to talk to them and get feedback we can't know for sure.

Not relevant. Pain goes on in the brain, not the peripheral nervous system.

How very brain-centric of you.

Do you also oppose vegetable cruelty, since you don't seem to see a difference?

I always make sure my vegetables are humanely killed.

 

[Drudgewire]

Did someone say "party?" I'll bring the veal meatballs.

Ironically I had vegetarian "meatballs" for dinner tonight, and they were freakin' delicious.

 

[Meed]

At least what we guess and assume goes on inside plants. Without being able to talk to them and get feedback we can't know for sure.

We don't have to talk to plants to know how photosynthesis works or to know how they react to external stimuli.

How very brain-centric of you.

It's not brain-centric to say the mind is a function of the brain. It's common knowledge.

What the heck are you talking about? This must be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had.

I always make sure my vegetables are humanely killed.

You mean that sincerely? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

We don't have to talk to plants to know how photosynthesis works or to know how they react to external stimuli.

One is a chemical reaction, the other observation. Doing the same thing with an animal doesn't entirely what they are really feeling, and they are closer to us structurally than plants are.

It's not brain-centric to say the mind is a function of the brain. It's common knowledge.

What the heck are you talking about? This must be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had.

And it was common knowledge up to a week ago that Phosphorus was required for life to exist and Arsenic was toxic to all life forms.

When we are talking about what for all intents is an alien life form "common knowledge" is not a valid measure of what is and what isn't.

You mean that sincerely? Somehow I doubt it.

Most of the vegetables I eat get chilled or frozen before being chopped up.

 

[Slimething]

You realize that pain occurs in the brain don't you?

In you. Your words reveal how truly egocentric your universe is.

Please post evidence that veggies don't feel pain.

 

[Slimething]

Slimething, am I to take it you're opposed to all animal cruelty laws?

Nice try at a derail. I've asked a basic question. Answer it.

 

[Slimething]

I see, you cannot challenge the distinction so call it a "childish assumption." The vast majority of people make a distinction between carrots and cats on the grounds the latter can experience pain. Now maybe that's false: maybe carrots can experience pain, maybe neither cats nor carrots can experience pain, or maybe pain should not figure into such laws at all, but that's the dominant view we're up against (and I would argue that it's the dominant view because it's the most sensible one).

Look up argumentum ad populum. Then look up ad hominem again.

In your response to Unaboogie, you ask for evidence that plants do NOT feel pain, and let's for a moment suppose he can somehow demonstrate to your satisfaction there's no reason to believe such a thing.

I'll take both evidence for or against. Have at it.

Does that mean you will agree it's morally preferable to eat plants rather than animals? I doubt it, because in my experience people on your side with your temperament quickly find they do not have many strong arguments at their disposal so they're reduced to raising frivolous, time-consuming objections.

Funny. Now you know my entire mind and temperament. All because you can't answer a simple question that goes to the heart of one of your arguments. Pity, really.

I think Cornail's question demands an answer before proceeding any further: do you oppose all animal cruelty laws? If not, why not?

That has nothing to do with my point at the moment. You guys are trying to skip whole pages of dialog where I get to poke holes in your pretext. I want that much fun, at least.