Mageth

Plants are not conscious beings. They are not capable of emotions, nor are they capable of interests. This is a well-known fact. Whether you chop a tree down, or give it plenty of water, it will not care either way, because it does not have any interests.

Again more unfounded assumptions, IMO. How do you KNOW plants aren't capable of something like emotions at some level and do not care in some sense if they're chopped down? (note: saying it's so doesn't make it a fact). All you can really say is that plants don't appear to be capable of emotions.

punkersluta

Mageth...

Actually, science has found no evidence whatsoever that plants are not consciousness. Modern neurobiology accepts the fact that consciousness arises from the brain -- something plants are bankrupt of. Even those who are not Vegetarians will confirm this as being an elementary principle of biology.

"Who can dispute the inhumanity of the sport of hunting - of pursuing a poor defenceless creature for mere amusement, till it becomes exhausted by terror and fatigue, and of then causing it to be torn to pieces by a pack of dogs? From what kind of instruction can men, and even women, imbibe such principles as these? How is it possible they can justify it? And what can their pleasure in it consist of? Is it not solely in the agony they produce to the animal? They will pretend that it is not, and try to make us believe so too - that it is merely in the pursuit. But what is the object of their pursuit? Is there any other than to torment and destroy?" - Lewis Gompertz [Moral Inquiries into the Situation of Man and Brutes, by Lewis Gompertz, early 1800's.]

<a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a>

For 108,
Punkerslut

Mageth

Anthropomorphizing ants, assinging souls to animals and comparing ants to Incas doesn't carry much weight, IMO. More unfounded assumptions.

How the #$%@! could we ever know if an insect is capable of experiencing "joy?" And why should I care?

The Darwin quote is the only one that interests me, and I tend to agree with him. But, so what if a "lower" animal has incipient or less-developed traits shared with humans? Why should I leap from there to not eating Bambi?

And since we share traits with "lower" animals, one trait (carnivorous and omnivorous) animals share is no compunction when killing and eating other animals! (and noncarnivores don't seem to have a compunction when killing other animals).

bonduca

er...what do I feed the cat?

punkersluta

Mageth...

I believe the term "soul" was not used in the spiritual sense.

Apparently, you failed to read my opening topic subject post in this thread. The reasons for promoting Vegetarianism are in there, and all you have done so far is to claim that plants may hold consciousness -- an absolutely absurd idea in the face of modern science.

1. It does not matter that animals eat each other. This holds no reflection on morality. Primates are known to steal from each other, salamanders are known to cannibalize each other, and some Galapagos lizards are known to rape each other. However, it does not give us any right to steal, to cannibalize, or to rape other humans. Then, certainly, if animals consume each other, it does not give humans any right to consume animals.

2. It is true that lions and other predators must hunt to kill. However, humans are certainly not in that situation. We do not need to kill other conscious animals to keep ourselves alive. In fact, humans will live longer and survive longer if we STOP eating meat, as proven by numerous studies in science and nutrition. However, lions do not have an option to stop eating meat. If the same situation were for humans, then eating animals would be justified. If a human was trapped on an island with no consumable vegetation, then hunting and killing an animal to consume would be justifiable, as no other option would be present. However, in today's world, we do not need to kill any animals to survive.

3. Consider the fact that the animals that we do cultivate - cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc., etc. - do not kill each other. Therefore, if you truly follow your own reasoning that you eat animals because they consume each other, then you will abstain from consuming the Vegetarian animals and thus stop eating beef, poultry, and ham.

"I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." - Thomas Paine [The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine, chapter 1.]

<a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a>

For 108,
Punkerslut

notto

So if we were to develop a breeding animal without a brain (or removed the brain) you would have no problem if we raised it and I ate it, correct?

punkersluta

notto...

So if we were to develop a breeding animal without a brain (or removed the brain) you would have no problem if we raised it and I ate it, correct?

Absolutely correct.

"Pain is pain, whethet it be inflicted on man or beast, being sensible of the misery of it while it lasts, suffers evil; and the sufferance of evil, unmeritedly, unprovokedly, where no offence has been given, and no good can possibly be answered by it, but merely to exhibit power or gratify malice, is Cruelty and Injustice in him that occasions it." - Humphry Primat, D.D. ["The Duty of Mercy to Brute Animals" (1776). Quoted in Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 1, 1894.]

<a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a>

For 108,
Punkerslut

bonduca

There is still the issue of the cat, who, were I to offer him salad, would poop in my bathtub.

Mageth

Actually, science has found no evidence whatsoever that plants are not consciousness. Modern neurobiology accepts the fact that consciousness arises from the brain -- something plants are bankrupt of. Even those who are not Vegetarians will confirm this as being an elementary principle of biology.

Reread my post. Consciousness as we know it arises from the brain. But note that some plants have primitive nervous systems, and there's evidence that some plants are capable of limited communication (e.g. trees sending out chemical signals when being attacked by a parasite; other trees responding by building up chemicals resistant to the parasite). So, as I said, at least some plants may be capable of something like emotions at some level. We really don't know for sure.

"Who can dispute the inhumanity of the sport of hunting - of pursuing a poor defenceless creature for mere amusement, till it becomes exhausted by terror and fatigue, and of then causing it to be torn to pieces by a pack of dogs? From what kind of instruction can men, and even women, imbibe such principles as these? How is it possible they can justify it? And what can their pleasure in it consist of? Is it not solely in the agony they produce to the animal? They will pretend that it is not, and try to make us believe so too - that it is merely in the pursuit. But what is the object of their pursuit? Is there any other than to torment and destroy?" - Lewis Gompertz [Moral Inquiries into the Situation of Man and Brutes, by Lewis Gompertz, early 1800's.]

So now it's gone from anti-meat eating to anti-hunting. Different topic, IMO. I eat meat and also disapprove of the above hunting scenario (even though all forms of hunting aren't as inhumane, and I've participated in some.)

BTW, quoting antique writings isn't much of an argument, IMO.

echidna

As a vegetarian sympathiser, the problem I have is the difficulty of objectively define personhood.

If one assigns a degree of worth to consciousness to justify protecting all humans, then the value should surely extend beyond humans as well.

Sympathetic, but morally bankrupt and still a carnivore.