PETA party

[Meed]

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.

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.

It's commonly accepted by science. If you don't put value on that, then I don't know what to say. I guess there's nothing to talk about.

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

So you think we should have anti plant cruelty laws?

 

[Meed]

Please post evidence that veggies don't feel pain.

I can't prove a negative.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's commonly accepted by science. If you don't put value on that, then I don't know what to say. I guess there's nothing to talk about.

And up till last week it was commonly accepted science that life couldn't exist in an asrenic rich enviroment without phosphorus. You seem to believe that science is 100% right all the time and infalible, history tells us otherwise, that science is continually evolving as new evidence is revealed. Now having said that there is evidence that something is going on with plants that we don't fully understand.

We know that Acadias can not only detect damage but respond to it quickly, and then communicate to other bushes in the area as well. This would appear to be a rather high level behaviour. Experiments in the past have produce interesting results as well, although it is hard to repeat them which is where it is let down. However, this may just be a case of us not understanding exactly how to communicate.

The following from XKCD seem appropriate here (please note that XLCD does allow hotlinking and all work is licenced as Creative Commons)

So you think we should have anti plant cruelty laws?

You seem to be attempting to change the subject somewhat, however, if it is shown that Plants are more aware than people would like them to be, it's certainly a possiblity. In the mean time I would suggest that we don't just close our minds to it and actually start looking deeper to explain how and why plants react to their surroundings like they do.

 

[Meed]

And up till last week it was commonly accepted science that life couldn't exist in an asrenic rich enviroment without phosphorus. You seem to believe that science is 100% right all the time and infalible, history tells us otherwise, that science is continually evolving as new evidence is revealed.

Actually no, I've never said that. Science gives us the best information we have right now. If you want to ignore science because it isn't "100% right all the time and infalible" then be my guest.

You seem to be attempting to change the subject somewhat, however, if it is shown that Plants are more aware than people would like them to be, it's certainly a possiblity. In the mean time I would suggest that we don't just close our minds to it and actually start looking deeper to explain how and why plants react to their surroundings like they do.

It hasn't been shown, so I'll take that as a no. Which means we're both in support of animal cruelty laws, but neither of us is in support of plant cruelty laws. Since we agree, is there a point to this silly debate?

 

[Wildy]

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

And that reason is?

 

[Cain]

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

Again, you seem to not have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Urging me to look up ad hominem is non-responsive. As for this so-called ad populum, I specifically cautioned against the notion that majority = truth, but considering you cannot understand basic English how can I expect you understand burden of proof?

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

Non-responsive once again. Before wasting time doing the hardwork of mustering physical evidence, it's important to establish ground-rules, especially with not-very-introspective ideologues. Why bother proving plants do not feel pain if someone could (reasonably) say "that's immaterial to animal rights"? Or to restate the original question you ignored: "let's for a moment suppose [Unaboogie] can somehow demonstrate to your satisfaction there's no reason to believe [plants experience pain]. Does that mean you will agree it's morally preferable to eat plants rather than animals?"

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.

Really? Where did I claim to know your "entire mind"? I'm sure it would be a small feat indeed, but I said no such thing. It's an evaluation based on your posts here and earlier threads, as well as years arguing this issue on this forum and people who adopt this style of "argument" in general. Here's a little spoiler alert for what's to likely come: unable to coherently argue their view, the anti-animal rights crowd on this forum makes its move toward a meta-ethical discussion urging subjectivism, nihilism and/or relativism.

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.

I don't think I could ask for a more straightforward confession of trolling. Thanks. If you think those "whole pages of dialog" are important, then one can infer you agree that non-human pain is morally significant.

 

[Slimething]

Again, you seem to not have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Urging me to look up ad hominem is non-responsive.

Nope. It's socratric. You don't know the definitions of the jargon you're using so carelessly. I don't care if you do it or not. An ignoramus insisting on staying that way doesn't even register on my list.

1 As for this so-called ad populum, I specifically cautioned against the notion that majority = truth, but considering you cannot understand basic English how can I expect you understand burden of proof?

LMAO! "Specifically warning" me about an inane argument followed by the inane argument is supposed to do what exactly?

Non-responsive once again. Before wasting time doing the hardwork of mustering physical evidence, it's important to establish ground-rules, especially with not-very-introspective ideologues.

Don't bother. There isn't any. I'm surprised you didn't know that already. Actually, not really surprised given your obfuscation.

Why bother proving plants do not feel pain if someone could (reasonably) say "that's immaterial to animal rights"?

Animal rights? You like to skip whole chapters, don't you? We're not there yet. You need to be led to water.

It's an evaluation based on your posts here and earlier threads, as well as years arguing this issue on this forum and people who adopt this style of "argument" in general. Here's a little spoiler alert for what's to likely come: unable to coherently argue their view, the anti-animal rights crowd on this forum makes its move toward a meta-ethical discussion urging subjectivism, nihilism and/or relativism.

A lot to work with in that paragraph. I'm stunned that you have argued this point in the past. I've seen it. You were outnumbered, vastly, yet you still had the idea that you could use argumentum ad populum to your benefit? Funny that. You've turned that table against yourself in two short posts.

As far as where this is headed, you may be right. It's an old universe and it's not my responsibility that you haven't accepted a few basic facts. Animal rights is funny.

I don't think I could ask for a more straightforward confession of trolling. Thanks.

Funny how a poster who favors violent solution tries to claim the high ground when he's asked to answer simple questions about his assumptions. Again, no skin off my nose.

If you think those "whole pages of dialog" are important, then one can infer you agree that non-human pain is morally significant.

Not so fast. This began with my questioning someone's statement that, by necessity, a person who chooses not to be vegetarian is choosing an inhumane lifestyle. As inhumane refers to voluntarily causing needless suffering and that food animals suffer their entire lives. So, I wanted to know if that poster knew that the food he ate didn't suffer. Equally. And how.

Then you jumped in with your usual house of cards construct. I'm not going there yet. Your conclusions are ego-driven and baseless. If you don't want that demonstrated, I'll advise you to quit now.

 

[Slimething]

I can't prove a negative.

OK. Prove that vegetables feel pain.

 

[Meed]

And that reason is?

I'm done answering obvious questions. I shouldn't need to explain the basic science of pain, like the simple fact that it occurs in the brain, but even when I do I get anti-science denial or those who simply ignore it and repeat the question. If you think abusing a dog is no different than abusing an eggplant, then have fun with that.

OK. Prove that vegetables feel pain.

They don't...

 

[Cain]

Nope. It's socratric. You don't know the definitions of the jargon you're using so carelessly. I don't care if you do it or not. An ignoramus insisting on staying that way doesn't even register on my list.

LMAO! "Specifically warning" me about an inane argument followed by the inane argument is supposed to do what exactly?

"Ignoramus," the ejaculatory laughter -- you come off sounding like a third-rate Bond villain. There is virtually nothing here worthy of a response. Also, it's Socratic, and it involves asking questions -- such as the questions I have been asking and you have been refusing to answer.

Not so fast. This began with my questioning someone's statement that, by necessity, a person who chooses not to be vegetarian is choosing an inhumane lifestyle. As inhumane refers to voluntarily causing needless suffering and that food animals suffer their entire lives. So, I wanted to know if that poster knew that the food he ate didn't suffer. Equally. And how.

Then you jumped in with your usual house of cards construct. I'm not going there yet. Your conclusions are ego-driven and baseless. If you don't want that demonstrated, I'll advise you to quit now.

Oh yes, and this is where your request to "Please post evidence that veggies don't feel pain" followed by "prove that vegetables feel pain."

 

[Slimething]

I'm done answering obvious questions.

ftfy. My only question is when did you begin? I'm not seeing any defense of your assumptions. Without defense, they can only be considered baseless opinion.

I shouldn't need to explain the basic science of pain, like the simple fact that it occurs in the brain, but even when I do I get anti-science denial or those who simply ignore it and repeat the question. If you think abusing a dog is no different than abusing an eggplant, then have fun with that.

Well, really, you should. I have no idea what you consider "the basic science of pain". Pain researchers are having a very difficult time even defining the term. In organisms with CNS's, yes it seems to be centralized in the brain. However, even organisms without CNS's demonstrate aversion/irritability responses. So, no, a brain or even a CNS is not a requirement for an organism to demonstrate a reaction to what we consider pain. All you are basing your opinion on is that vegies can't move out of the way when the picker or cutter arrives.

As you don't seem to know a lot about aversive reactions in nature, we can assume that you don't have any rational answer to the question regarding whether or not a vegetable experiences pain. My main point was that the utter conceit behind the statement that anyone who hasn't chosen a vegetarian lifestyle is thereby inhumane.

Not being photosynthetic, none of us can life without killing something. Said something could be in pain when we kill it. That is not a justification for looking down your nose at meat eaters.

Enough said on that. I don't care whether or not you agree as you've wasted so much time with your just-so statements. You have not thought your position out carefully enough.

Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice taken up for many different reasons. Those who do it because they believe it's more moral or more humane than the usual omnivorous lifestyle are merely rewarding their egotism.

 

[Slimething]

"Ignoramus," the ejaculatory laughter -- you come off sounding like a third-rate Bond villain. .... Oh yes, and this is where your request to "Please post evidence that veggies don't feel pain" followed by "prove that vegetables feel pain."

Do you have anything worthwhile to say? If so, say it. If not, I'll merely ignore you. No skin off my back.

 

[Meed]

ftfy.

No.

My only question is when did you begin?

Read the thread.

I'm not seeing any defense of your assumptions.

Then you aren't reading the thread.

Well, really, you should. I have no idea what you consider "the basic science of pain". Pain researchers are having a very difficult time even defining the term.

Many terms are hard to define yet pretty well understood.

In organisms with CNS's, yes it seems to be centralized in the brain. However, even organisms without CNS's demonstrate aversion/irritability responses. So, no, a brain or even a CNS is not a requirement for an organism to demonstrate a reaction to what we consider pain.

Aversion is not what we consider pain.

All you are basing your opinion on is that vegies can't move out of the way when the picker or cutter arrives.

Wrong. You're making things up in your head.

Not being photosynthetic, none of us can life without killing something. Said something could be in pain when we kill it. That is not a justification for looking down your nose at meat eaters.

It could be, but there's no justification for the conclusion that something "could be" true when there's no evidence for it. You're just appealing to the trivially obvious facts that we can't know anything for sure and we can't prove a negative.

I haven't said anything about looking down my nose at anyone, FYI.

Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice taken up for many different reasons. Those who do it because they believe it's more moral or more humane than the usual omnivorous lifestyle are merely rewarding their egotism.

The same could be said of any altruistic or ethically motivated behavior. I'm sure you have some behavior that is similarly motivated yourself, assuming you're not a sociopath.

Your argument about plants is ridiculous. Most people, omnivores included, support some sort of anti animal cruelty laws and don't feel the same way about plants. Arguing that there's no difference between abusing an animal and abusing a carrot puts you in lala land.

 

[Slimething]

Many terms are hard to define yet pretty well understood.

Such as...? You like these throw-away statements, don't you? If you are so sure of yourself, define pain.

Aversion is not what we consider pain.

Ummm, it's a symptom of pain. You really aren't up on this, are you? Please define pain, then I will tell you about where aversion originates.

Wrong. You're making things up in your head.

Could be. I'm doing my best to fill in gaps in your reasoning because you won't answer questions.

Yes, I have read the thread. You continuously refuse to discuss your basis. You want to discuss only your conclusions. Pity that your adversaries fell for that old trick. Your conclusions are defensible only if one grants that your assumptions are true. Your assumptions are flawed and that's the reason you won't deign to answer the small, innocuous questions.

I haven't said anything about looking down my nose at anyone, FYI.

Nor was my original comment aimed at you. For some odd reason you decided to defend an outrageously judgmental comment from another poster. Why? You don't have to answer. It's an earmark of an ideologue who tries to intercede when they sense danger to their foundation.

The same could be said of any altruistic or ethically motivated behavior.

So, I take it you agree. Why not just say "I agree."? You know why and I know why. Doesn't it suck to live your life on the defensive?

I'm sure you have some behavior that is similarly motivated yourself, assuming you're not a sociopath.

More judgmentalism from an ideologue. Why don't you just come out and tell us all what are cornsail-approved lifestyles and save us all the ignominy of being sociopaths? You really, really need a life.

Your argument about plants is ridiculous. Most people, omnivores included, support some sort of anti animal cruelty laws and don't feel the same way about plants. Arguing that there's no difference between abusing an animal and abusing a carrot puts you in lala land.

Are you as poor a debater as cain? I've already exposed him for using the ad populum thing and here you are repeating it. The plant in pain is an unknown but it's not all that material to my life. I freely admit that I kill to live and make no apologies for it. I won't have a pompous, smug, ignorant person tell me I'm being inhumane. I know where my food comes from and I'm away of what it takes to get it to my table.

Get a grip. You put your dogs into hunts that don't pertain to you. You have enough problems with your baseless opinions. Don't take up for people who are even more clueless.

This discussion can go no further, from what I can see. You won't answer questions, even to say "I don't know". (The correct one for the one I asked, BTW. Primarily because you don't know.) PM me if you ever want to debate openly, without the bobbing and weaving.

 

[Meed]

Such as...?

Life, animal, species, cognition...

You like these throw-away statements, don't you? If you are so sure of yourself, define pain.

Physical suffering or distress.

Nor was my original comment aimed at you.

Alright. Just making sure.

For some odd reason you decided to defend an outrageously judgmental comment from another poster? Why?

Because I think asking why it's more humane to harm a plant than an animal is as silly as asking why it's more humane to harm a plant than a human. Plants don't have brains, which is where suffering takes place. Speculating that plants might suffer just as much as animals is not grounded in anything reasonable or science based.

So, I take it you agree. Why not just say "I agree."?

I don't agree. I was just pointing out that your argument could be applied to any ethical stance.

More judgmentalism from an ideologue. Why don't you just come out and tell us all what are cornsail-approved lifestyles and save us all the ignominy of being sociopaths? You really, really need a life.

What judgmentalism? I said I assumed you are not a sociopath. Are you saying you never engage in behavior that is ethically motivated?

Are you as poor a debater as cain? I've already exposed him for using the ad populum thing and here you are repeating it.

Just to point out that you're in lala land. Your argument is not supported by science, nor is it commonly held by meat eaters. There isn't much reason to take it seriously.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Ummm, it's a symptom of pain. You really aren't up on this, are you? Please define pain, then I will tell you about where aversion originates.

Pain is a subjective experience associated with neuronal signaling in the brain. We know a lot about how pain works, and how to stop it. A single cell can show aversion to something, but cannot feel pain. Maybe you wish to define pain as something completely different than what humans experience?

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

 

[varwoche]

So, post something that convinces me that plants do not feel pain when killed.

This is pseudo-skeptical arm-waving of the most asinine sort.

 

[Unabogie]

This is pseudo-skeptical arm-waving of the most asinine sort.

This is why I tend to avoid these threads. Even if you want to argue that plants feel pain, which goes against everything we know about the subject, they are not subjected to the cruelty that animals on factory farms are. If the plants are "killed", then it's a quick end. In the case of your eggplant, the plant isn't killed, its extra ovary is removed before it rots.

It's a fun intellectual exercise, but to what end? Will the posters making this claim use the answer in any meaningful way, or just use it to justify eating the same way they always have?

A poster was asking why I felt justified in moralizing, and my answer is simple, and it's the question I asked myself ten years ago when I stopped eating animals.

If, given the choices in front of you, one choice of food will be less cruel than the other (veggie burgers instead of hamburger at the market, etc) then as long as you can be happy and well fed, why choose the one that's more cruel?

If you honestly think plants feel MORE pain and MORE suffering than the animals you eat, you should lobby for a repeal of the animal cruelty laws and for passage of new laws protecting asparagus. Then you may want to abstain from eating all plants. However, if you, like me, think that's a bunch of nonsense, then simply eat in accordance with what you think is the diet that minimizes cruelty, is best for your health, is best for the environment.

"Plants feel pain too" is just a lazy person's way of avoiding thinking about their food beyond what's on sale at the store.

 

[Slimething]

Life, animal, species, cognition...

Evasion noted.

Physical suffering or distress.

Circular argument noted.

Because I think asking why it's more humane to harm a plant than an animal is as silly as asking why it's more humane to harm a plant than a human.

The entire point is based on the definition of humane. You've done nothing to support this "thought". You consider it silly and dismiss it out of hand for a reason. What's that reason? Maybe you can be more honest with yourself than you are with us?

Plants don't have brains, which is where suffering takes place. Speculating that plants might suffer just as much as animals is not grounded in anything reasonable or science based.

You're using circular logic again. You've now defined suffering as only occurring in a brain. The result is that you win the argument that plants can't suffer because they have no brain! Bully for you. Do you do birthdays?

I don't agree. I was just pointing out that your argument could be applied to any ethical stance.

There's that "think" thing again. You have done nothing to support that opinion. Give us something to hold on to.

What judgmentalism? I said I assumed you are not a sociopath. Are you saying you never engage in behavior that is ethically motivated?

Read what you wrote. If you don't see it, I can't explain it to you. Actually I can but don't have the time or energy. You are as dodgy a person as I've met here.

Just to point out that you're in lala land. Your argument is not supported by science, nor is it commonly held by meat eaters. There isn't much reason to take it seriously.

I've just given you scientific evidence (the unicellular avoidance stuff, remember?). You've done nothing to fix a disconnection from those organisms that evolved to plants and vegetables. See what science does? It gives ideologues no out. So, if Mr. Science would just once please show me how a plant cannot possibly feel pain although it's ancestors could, I'd grant the point. Pretty please?

 

[Slimething]

Pain is a subjective experience associated with neuronal signaling in the brain. We know a lot about how pain works, and how to stop it. A single cell can show aversion to something, but cannot feel pain.

Pain - avoidance. Hmm, how could those two phenomena be possibly linked? Gee, do you think pain is what biologists classify as irritability to negative stimuli? Could that possibly be what pain is? The brain signaling you that something is wrong and should be checked out?

Maybe you wish to define pain as something completely different than what humans experience?

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

ThunderChunky, I don't know you from Adam so I'll try to be kind here. The nature of pain is subjective, as you've pointed out. Some even contend that only humans can feel pain. I will define pain as that sensation that signals an organism to take steps to ameliorate the cause of the sensation by whatever means available to it. That includes avoidance, OK?

Here's what I'm having trouble with in your post. You posted the above wiki URL. It leads to a discussion of a very unusual human condition involving insensitivty to pain. Why? Could you not find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain ? No? Yes? Why not post that? It includes a lot of the stuff I've been arguing, yes?

Case in point, a sentence in the introduction to the article, bolding mine:

Pain motivates us to withdraw from potentially damaging situations, protect a damaged body part while it heals, and avoid those situations in the future.

Do you see anything in the above sentence that would equate to avoidance. Look closely. Read it several time, if you have to?

Really, let me know when you have a point to make.