PETA party

[Slimething]

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

Seriously, why say anything if you have nothing to offer? Do you have anything that states that plants don't feel pain? Didn't think so. Back in your hole.

 

[Slimething]

This is why I tend to avoid these threads

Yes, your absence from this thread once you were challenged has been duly noted. Nice of you to come back now that others have tried to defend your statement. Actually, they haven't defended it. They're now distancing themselves from it.

Even if you want to argue that plants feel pain, which goes against everything we know about the subject,

Nope. Just posted the URL for the Wiki article on pain. Read it.

they are not subjected to the cruelty that animals on factory farms are.

As you've already admitted in the first part of this sentence, you don't know the first thing about pain. If so, please justify the claim. And it is a claim.

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?

This is what I find really funny about you. Why should anyone have to justify the way they eat? To you, especially? Anyone with any sense whatsoever would peg you for what you are withing half a sentence.

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?

A dichotomy you have not supported with any factual information. Oh, do go on.

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.

I merely asked if veggies could feel pain. You're the one introducing degrees into the equation. I might add that you have no basis to assign those measures even to farm animals. All you can say is that you would suffer under identical circumstances but that has not much to do with a cow or chicken. Or, maybe it does. Have you ever been or worked on a farm?


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.

Not as lazy as someone who makes life decisions based on a phenomenon they know nothing about or apportions it on the basis of their personal bias.

So, here we have it. Everyone who isn't like you is lazy and intellectually dishonest. Otherwise, we haven't justified our personal choices to you sufficiently. Really, grow up.

 

[Meed]

Many terms are hard to define yet pretty well understood.

Such as...?

Life, animal, species, cognition...

Evasion noted.

W. T. F.

define pain.

Physical suffering or distress.

Circular argument noted.

W. T. F.

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?

Yeah, I consider it silly to argue that killing plants is inhumane. The reason is they don't have brains.

You're using circular logic again. You've now defined suffering as only occurring in a brain.

No, I haven't. Suffering only occurs in the brain as far as we know scientifically, but that doesn't make the brain part of the definition.

Read what you wrote. If you don't see it, I can't explain it to you.

I don't care. If you want to believe my saying that someone who doesn't engage in any ethically motivated behavior is a sociopath makes me a judgmental ideologue, knock yourself out.

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?

I already told you avoidance is not pain and that I can't prove a negative.

 

[ThunderChunky]

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?

Something like that...you go the part about the brain right. The thing is...avoidance evolved long before pain. So you simple avoidance=pian theory is falsified.

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?

That's not the definition for pain that biologists use, but it could be a logical one if you define sensation.

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?

Where in the article does it say that plants use pain? It seems to contradict that claim:
"As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no apparent nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects[11][12][13] (one known exception being the fruit fly)."

I find it interesting that you completely avoided discussion of congenital insensitivity to pain. Please explain why these people do not feel pain.

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

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.

So if pain motivates avoidance, all avoidance must be motivated by pain? That is a logical fallacy that no one is buying here.

You seem to think that all cells feel pain because they can display avoidance. That doesn't make sense if you understand what a cell is.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, your absence from this thread once you were challenged has been duly noted. Nice of you to come back now that others have tried to defend your statement. Actually, they haven't defended it. They're now distancing themselves from it.

Uh, I don't think so, and my absence from this thread is because I have a life outside this message board. Sorry if that sounds like a foreign concept to you. And your attempt to turn this response into one about me (whom you've never met) is also duly noted.

Here's what you don't understand, and what you apparently never will. I'm not asking you to justify anything to me. At all. I don't care about you. I'm suggesting that people ask themselves questions about what they eat, which apparently you find tantamount to telling you what to do. So either you already have thought of these things, and choose to lash out at others over the implications, or you are just here to troll. I'm not sure what this "pegs me as", but I'll take it and continue to make the life choices I do.

 

[Cain]

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

This is almost a put-on, right down to the "socratric" method. Worthwhile to respond to? I should have used that standard when I first read your posts. But please, keep demanding others provide evidence plants do not feel pain. Your illusions of competence are borderline entertaining.

 

[Slimething]

No, I haven't. Suffering only occurs in the brain as far as we know scientifically, but that doesn't make the brain part of the definition.

Since you haven't defined your terms other than in a way that feeds your argument and not tied to any scientific body, you have made the brain part of the definition.

Lookie:
http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/plants_and_pain/

I saw a blog post citing two peer-reviewed studies on the subject but can't locate it again. I'll keep trying and will post it.

I don't care. If you want to believe my saying that someone who doesn't engage in any ethically motivated behavior is a sociopath makes me a judgmental ideologue, knock yourself out.

Nope. You stated that all such activity is tied to egotism. I reject that.

I already told you avoidance is not pain and that I can't prove a negative.

Pay attention. Several posters, including myself, have already pointed out that there is no scientific definition of pain. You can, therefore, not say that pain isn't avoidance. From what I've observed, pain is an avoidance mechanism. YMMV.

 

[Slimething]

The thing is...avoidance evolved long before pain. So you simple avoidance=pian theory is falsified.

Pain is avoidance. You yourself have correctly stated that pain is as yet a loosely defined term. Do you really believe that pain only occurs in a brain? Unicellular organisms are known to avoid or flee certain stimuli such as light or electricity as well as some chemicals. Why do they do that?

That's not the definition for pain that biologists use, but it could be a logical one if you define sensation.

You recently posted (correctly) that the term pain has no formal scientific definition. Now it does?

Where in the article does it say that plants use pain? It seems to contradict that claim:
"As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no apparent nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects[11][12][13] (one known exception being the fruit fly)."

Nowhere. Where does it say they can't? It onl says that there is no known mechanism.

I find it interesting that you completely avoided discussion of congenital insensitivity to pain. Please explain why these people do not feel pain.

Not my thing and I see no relevance. What, those people don't have brains? Is that your point?

So if pain motivates avoidance, all avoidance must be motivated by pain? That is a logical fallacy that no one is buying here.

That is a logical fallacy but you're the one who wrote it, not me. I have not made that claim. It's silly. I avoid a lot of things when not in pain but, then again, I do so thinking that they will cause me pain. So, what do you think? Is there an instance where you have avoided something that you did not believe would cause you pain?

You seem to think that all cells feel pain because they can display avoidance. That doesn't make sense if you understand what a cell is.

Really, I didn't say that. That's something you want me to say so you can dismiss the idea that plants may feel some sort of pain.

 

[Slimething]

And your attempt to turn this response into one about me (whom you've never met) is also duly noted.

That's right, me bucko. Somehow, I don't like judgmental people. Sue me.

Here's what you don't understand, and what you apparently never will. I'm not asking you to justify anything to me. At all. I don't care about you.

Oh, I understand that pretty well. Back at ya.

However, the following lines seem to indicate that you do care about what people do:

I hate these threads because people just can't seem to have an honest discussion about the food they eat (People Eating Tasty Animals, yo!)

Look, if you can get the same nutrition without eating animals or their byproducts (and you most certainly can), then if you knowingly choose to do it anyway you are making an inhumane choice.

Those statements do sound a little intolerant to me.

BTW, you never gave us any evidence that farm animals suffer their entire lives. Got any? How about whether or not you've ever been on a farm?

See, that's why I brought up the remote possibility that a plant may feel. That was a heavy topic of discussion when I was in undergrad and there is some very arcane evidence that they might. Naturally, the topic is not well funded so we'll never know. What's funny is that most of us don't care. We eat stuff we know can feel pain. Only the veggies seem to care. Why? I don't think they give a damn about the plants, do you? Nope.

Anyway, I don't think you know heck of a lot about farming or even if there was any evidence that plants could also feel pain. You've made your mind up based on some fairly amazing leaps of faith. Comfortable now with your bias, you can tell us all that we're inhumane if we don't eat like you.

Yes, most of us have thought about what we eat and whether or not it's justifiable to eat meat. Who hasn't? Yet most of us have formed a different conclusion than you so I guess we're inhumane, huh? Maybe the rest of us are not convinced that farm animals are tortured every day of their lives and killed slowly and painfully. Maybe we all feel that we're just animals and need to eat what our bodies crave. Maybe we know that we don't control nature. Could be any or all of those things, ya think?

Frankly, if you want to convince yourself that you've made the only moral choice, that's fine. Expect a little pushback when you do start moralizing, though. IMHO, you've based your vegetarianism on various major misconceptions. But that's just me. Who am I to judge, right?

 

[Slimething]

This is almost a put-on, right down to the "socratric" method.

No put on. It's just some arcane subject you don't know enough about. Don't really care, though. Somehow, the possibility bothers you more than most. And that's fine by me.

Worthwhile to respond to? I should have used that standard when I first read your posts.

Never too late. Put me on your IL. Do you need me to get you instructions?

But please, keep demanding others provide evidence plants do not feel pain. Your illusions of competence are borderline entertaining.

I just posted some. Not compelling evidence but evidence nonetheless. I'll let you know if I ever get more.

Thing is, I don't care if plants can feel. You do. A lot. Says a lot about you. More than I want to know, really.

 

[Meed]

Since you haven't defined your terms other than in a way that feeds your argument and not tied to any scientific body, you have made the brain part of the definition.

No, I haven't. I even explained to you why, but you've decided to ignore it and repeat yourself.

Look, if you want to define pain as including avoidance, I really don't care. Avoidance can be displayed by a magnet, so I think it's ridiculous, but it's of no importance to me how you decide to define it. When I say pain I'm talking about psychological suffering brought about by physical damage, roughly speaking. That doesn't occur in plants (please don't ask me to prove a negative again). And that's what's relevant to describing something as "humane" or "inhumane". I don't care if you call it pain.

Nope. You stated that all such activity is tied to egotism. I reject that.

No, I didn't. And I've already pointed that out. You're once again ignoring what I actually said.

 

[Cain]

No put on. It's just some arcane subject you don't know enough about. Don't really care, though. Somehow, the possibility bothers you more than most. And that's fine by me.

Instead of generating sharp arguments, you insist you've produced them. You're one of those people who is boring if we're forced to take them seriously. Thankfully you say enough to disabuse others of such notion.

I just posted some. Not compelling evidence but evidence nonetheless. I'll let you know if I ever get more.

Please do. I look forward to all your updates, but again, I wish you could use that all that mental energy to end diseases (what with your rigorous scientific training and all) or solve the North Korea crisis. Question: can a fetus feel pain? Does your (brilliant) deductive reasoning prove that as well?

Thing is, I don't care if plants can feel. You do. A lot. Says a lot about you. More than I want to know, really.

Thanks for almost one week later indirectly answering a question of mine. I care if any organism can feel pain, and that does include plants. To say otherwise would be speciesist. That you do not care about causing pain to others says quite a bit more about you, which is why your accusations of egotism are almost amusing.

I don't think you understand how a reductio ad absurdum works. You're supposed to make your opponents' arguments look ridiculous, but you're too busy making yourself look ridiculous.

 

[Slimething]

Look, if you want to define pain as including avoidance, I really don't care.

Good. So defined.

Avoidance can be displayed by a magnet, so I think it's ridiculous, but it's of no importance to me how you decide to define it.

Except a magnet is not alive. I was introduced to the topic of pain in plants in a biology class in college during a discussion of the definition of life or alive or any permutation that we use to discriminate live things from dead things. I believe there were five characteristics but I've forgotten a few. The one that sparked the discussion was "irritability" so maybe we should use that term for my definition but I consider that a form of pain. A living organism would try to avoid or ameliorate a negative stimulus while a dead one can't. So, we came to discuss most plants. They can't seem to avoid something that would injure them. Unobogie is correct about eggplant but other fruiting vegetables are hurt (tomato and pepper plants are ripped out of the ground and then the fruit are harvested) and he's ignoring a large number of crops that are hurt by harvest such as asparagus, root crops, leafies, etc. However, they were evolved from motile species that did avoid dangerous factors. What happened to that ability?

So that leads me to my definition of pain that maybe plants could sense. Maybe not. Don't really care. Any given finding would not change my behavior one way or another.

When I say pain I'm talking about psychological suffering brought about by physical damage, roughly speaking. That doesn't occur in plants (please don't ask me to prove a negative again).

I'll give you that. I was talking strictly about somatic pain, not psychological pain. However, you should admit that psych pain is only one possible variety. There are others. For example, a paper cut hurts but I don't think it counts as psychological.

And that's what's relevant to describing something as "humane" or "inhumane". I don't care if you call it pain.

Well, no. The term "inhumane" includes an intentional aspect. You can cause pain but not be inhumane. Humans are animals and have to kill to eat. That is not inhumane as long as the prey does not suffer unduly. Cats play with their food but there's a debate as to whether or not that's inhumane.

Anyway, my comments were meant for Unabogie who feels that anyone who has not decided to become vegetarian considering the facts at our disposal is inhumane. I find that unfair and offensive. I also find it ignorant. So I pushed back.

No, I didn't. And I've already pointed that out. You're once again ignoring what I actually said.

Here's what you said:

If you want to believe my saying that someone who doesn't engage in any ethically motivated behavior is a sociopath makes me a judgmental ideologue, knock yourself out

.
Anyone not engaging in ethically-motivated behavior is a sociopath. First, that's not even close to the definition of a sociopath. A very unpleasant person, yes; a boor, yes; a sociopath? Not necessarily. Still, it requires one to determine motivation which is very difficult and leads to judgmental behavior. In the case of eating meat, I don't think anyone does so thinking how great it is that an animal died so they could do so. Anyone telling you that is happening is delusional.

 

[Slimething]

Question: can a fetus feel pain?

Depends on your definition of pain. Ante up.

I care if any organism can feel pain

Not true. You favor violent means to liberate animals which you assume are uncomfortable. I believe there's a little dissonance in your philosophies. Don't really care about that either. I know you can feel pain and that you're in it whenever you read my posts. Suits me fine.

, and that does include plants

So why wait for me to post evidence. Google much? Poor search skills?

To say otherwise would be speciesist.

You really are impressed with yourself, aren't you? Well, that's one person. Maybe you can write up some kind of manifesto for us to laugh at. That would be a good use of your time.

That you do not care about causing pain to others says quite a bit more about you, which is why your accusations of egotism are almost amusing.

I do care and I don't generally go about causing undue pain. I don't usually hold myself as a paragon of virtue either. You do. That's where the egotism comes in. You've made a large number of assumptions that allow you to feel comfortable deriding others (like me) and believing it's your right to wish them harm.

I don't think you understand how a reductio ad absurdum works. You're supposed to make your opponents' arguments look ridiculous, but you're too busy making yourself look ridiculous.

Fair enough. I don't think you understand nature and it's laws. I'd rather be ignorant on lone logical flaw than life in general. Suit yourself.

 

[Cain]

Depends on your definition of pain. Ante up.

Way to fail up front. I asked you if it experiences pain, so feel free to supply your own definition. You are, after all, the expert, what with access to the new-fangled Google. (Curiously, you never asked how far along the fetus was). I just figured that while you're dropping all this knowledge, you might as well go along toward resolving the abortion debate and that whole hangup about a "brain stem."

Not true. You favor violent means to liberate animals which you assume are uncomfortable. I believe there's a little dissonance in your philosophies. Don't really care about that either. I know you can feel pain and that you're in it whenever you read my posts. Suits me fine.

You cannot follow an argument along so you're reduced to introducing incendiary, non-relevant information -- this business about liberating animals by "violent means." Oozing desperation, I suppose you throw in a little projection.

But since I'm feeling charitable, I will indulge this nonsense. For a moment. Let's suppose Jones claims to care about all organisms that can experience pain, but believes that bears are incapable of feeling pain. Bears, you see, are godless killing machines. He's sincere in both of these beliefs. Well, we may have caught Jones in an external contradiction -- his beliefs do not map with reality because we're pretty sure bears can feel pain. But there's not really an internal contradiction.

So perhaps I mistakenly believe plants do not feel pain. Furthermore, perhaps I mistakenly do not believe in the existence of Unicorns, or the great Unicorn Holocaust. I am something of a Unicorn Holocaust Denier. Well, I just want to assure everyone that I have nothing against Unicorns (or plants).

So why wait for me to post evidence. Google much? Poor search skills?

It's incumbent upon you because you're the one making such claims. Maybe you should put Google aside and check out a decent intro to logic text.

I do care and I don't generally go about causing undue pain.

Undue pain? So when you've never run across grass? Maybe the grass deserved it. This recalls an earlier question -- another one you've dodged: if plants do not feel pain, then will agree it's morally preferable to eat them instead of animals?

I don't usually hold myself as a paragon of virtue either. You do. That's where the egotism comes in.

Cool. Please produce a quote where I say or suggest that I am a paragon of virtue. Again, you can't stick to your arguments, so you're desperate to personalize matters; long on rhetoric, short on ideas, evidence, and clear thinking.

You've made a large number of assumptions that allow you to feel comfortable deriding others (like me) and believing it's your right to wish them harm.

Yes, a large number of assumptions. Between the two of us who said, "I don't care if plants can feel pain"? Out of all the members posting to this thread, who asked others to "prove plants do NOT feel pain"? You're condescending and foolish, therefore deserving ten times any mockery you've received (including unintended self-parody).

I don't think you understand nature and it's laws. I'd rather be ignorant on lone logical flaw...

Indeed. You're a joke.

At least some people who have been around this block have the self-respect to make an argument for reducing overall harm to animals by consuming large herbivores (because of all the mice cut up in wheat fields). Of course, like yourself, they couldn't care less about the moral underpinnings. They're arguing in bad faith to try to score a point.

 

[Meed]

Good. So defined.

Except a magnet is not alive. I was introduced to the topic of pain in plants in a biology class in college during a discussion of the definition of life or alive or any permutation that we use to discriminate live things from dead things. I believe there were five characteristics but I've forgotten a few. The one that sparked the discussion was "irritability" so maybe we should use that term for my definition but I consider that a form of pain. A living organism would try to avoid or ameliorate a negative stimulus while a dead one can't. So, we came to discuss most plants. They can't seem to avoid something that would injure them. Unobogie is correct about eggplant but other fruiting vegetables are hurt (tomato and pepper plants are ripped out of the ground and then the fruit are harvested) and he's ignoring a large number of crops that are hurt by harvest such as asparagus, root crops, leafies, etc. However, they were evolved from motile species that did avoid dangerous factors. What happened to that ability?

So that leads me to my definition of pain that maybe plants could sense. Maybe not. Don't really care. Any given finding would not change my behavior one way or another.

Your definition does not appear coherent whatsoever, but like I said it's of no concern to me.

I'll give you that. I was talking strictly about somatic pain, not psychological pain. However, you should admit that psych pain is only one possible variety. There are others. For example, a paper cut hurts but I don't think it counts as psychological.

A paper cut causes psychological pain. If you block the nerve impulses from reaching the brain then it won't "hurt". That's true of all somatic and visceral pain. And there's no evidence that this type of psychological activity occurs anywhere outside of brains. Theoretically it could, but there's no reason to think so.

Anyway, my comments were meant for Unabogie who feels that anyone who has not decided to become vegetarian considering the facts at our disposal is inhumane. I find that unfair and offensive. I also find it ignorant. So I pushed back.

It's a valid opinion. We are all inhumane to some degree.

Here's what you said:
.
Anyone not engaging in ethically-motivated behavior is a sociopath. First, that's not even close to the definition of a sociopath. A very unpleasant person, yes; a boor, yes; a sociopath? Not necessarily. Still, it requires one to determine motivation which is very difficult and leads to judgmental behavior. In the case of eating meat, I don't think anyone does so thinking how great it is that an animal died so they could do so. Anyone telling you that is happening is delusional.

sociopath [( soh -see-uh-path, soh -shee-uh-path)]

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others. ( Compare psychopath.)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath

Someone who engages in no ethically motivated behavior wouldn't hesitate to kill a man for 10 dollars if there was no risk or effort.

You are saying that vegetarianism for moral reasons is ego-driven and judgmental. How is it different than other ethically motivated behaviors? Or are you saying all morality is ego-driven?

 

[CDFingers]

Eating animals is unnecessary. Just because it is unnecessary doesn't mean folks won't do it. Humans employ flexible morals, so the eating of animals will not change until there is a high financial cost to doing so.

CDFingers

 

[Slimething]

Way to fail up front. ...

You cannot follow an argument ...

But since I'm feeling charitable, ...

So perhaps I mistakenly believe ...

It's incumbent upon you because ...

Undue pain? ...

Cool. Please produce a quote ...

Yes, a large number of assumptions. ...

Indeed. You're a joke. ...

At least some people ....

Can't defend a position? Turn into a blithering child when confronted? Not my problem. Too many intelligent people on this Forum so I'm not wasting any more time on you. Bye!

 

[Slimething]

Your definition does not appear coherent whatsoever, but like I said it's of no concern to me.

Of course. I gave you only one of five characteristics of "life". The others are growth, reproduction, respiration and [can't remember the last one]. You like to condemn things others write without giving a reason or an alternative. What is your definition of life? How is it better than the one I've given, albeit incomplete, and not really mine at all?

A paper cut causes psychological pain.

You're using the lexicon a little sloppily here. Psychological refers to the psyche, not the brain per se. If you want to refer to pain mediated by the brain, I would use the word cerebral, CNS-related or something else. Paper cuts don't cause psychological pain unless they're intentionally inflicted by your mother.

If you block the nerve impulses from reaching the brain then it won't "hurt". That's true of all somatic and visceral pain. And there's no evidence that this type of psychological activity occurs anywhere outside of brains. Theoretically it could, but there's no reason to think so.

Utterly wrong. Read up on reflexes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system. Many types of pain and avoidance are handled by systems that don't involve the brain. Also investigate the role of "giant axons" in marine life and insects.

It's a valid opinion. We are all inhumane to some degree.

An opinion inconsistent with fact is not valid. Notice I challenged a few other assumptions that resulted in another evaporation of said Unabogie? Agree with your second sentence.

sociopath [( soh -see-uh-path, soh -shee-uh-path)]

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others. ( Compare psychopath.)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath

Someone who engages in no ethically motivated behavior wouldn't hesitate to kill a man for 10 dollars if there was no risk or effort.

That definition is fairly broad. Like the saying goes, Hitler loved dogs. I know a few people who would fall into "extremely abnormal" but are not sociopaths, just really maldapted. I don't know anyone who doesn't have some altruistic compartment in their lives. Do you? I do know some sociopaths, though, and they do have altruistic activities.

You are saying that vegetarianism for moral reasons is ego-driven and judgmental. How is it different than other ethically motivated behaviors? Or are you saying all morality is ego-driven?

Morality-based vegetarianism is a refutation of the human body's nature. It's an overlay imposed on one's own body as a reflection of a value system, not for a biological reason. It requires a judgement that the eating of meat is wrong or decadent. The holder of those views inevitably will use that standard on people other than themselves. Eventually, it will become a crutch of self-admiration followed by derision of others.

To rephrase: I know a few vegetarians. Those that practice that for reasons of taste or medical necessity are fairly nice people. Those who gave up meat because it was "wrong" to eat animals are complete jerks. It may not be due to vegetarianism as much as a psychological need to differentiate oneself from others and to try to somehow claim the moral high ground.

 

[Meed]

Of course. I gave you only one of five characteristics of "life". The others are growth, reproduction, respiration and [can't remember the last one]. You like to condemn things others write without giving a reason or an alternative. What is your definition of life? How is it better than the one I've given, albeit incomplete, and not really mine at all?

The definition of life is irrelevant to anything I'm interested in discussing. Why you'd think I care about having a "better" one is beyond me.

You're using the lexicon a little sloppily here. Psychological refers to the psyche, not the brain per se. If you want to refer to pain mediated by the brain, I would use the word cerebral, CNS-related or something else. Paper cuts don't cause psychological pain unless they're intentionally inflicted by your mother.

Psychological is exactly what I meant.

Utterly wrong. Read up on reflexes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system. Many types of pain and avoidance are handled by systems that don't involve the brain. Also investigate the role of "giant axons" in marine life and insects.

Your link doesn't support your claim whatsoever.

I don't know anyone who doesn't have some altruistic compartment in their lives.

That's the point I was trying to make. ESMO.

Morality-based vegetarianism is a refutation of the human body's nature.

This is a nonsensical statement.

It's an overlay imposed on one's own body as a reflection of a value system, not for a biological reason.

This is also nonsensical.

It requires a judgement that the eating of meat is wrong or decadent. The holder of those views inevitably will use that standard on people other than themselves.

How does one "use a standard on people"?

Eventually, it will become a crutch of self-admiration followed by derision of others.

Dreamed this up in your head?

To rephrase: I know a few vegetarians. Those that practice that for reasons of taste or medical necessity are fairly nice people. Those who gave up meat because it was "wrong" to eat animals are complete jerks. It may not be due to vegetarianism as much as a psychological need to differentiate oneself from others and to try to somehow claim the moral high ground.

Anecdotes about your subjective opinion of a few people's personalities is not evidence. I'm sure you know this.