Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PJPSYCO · 03-11-2002, 05:48 PM

I find it really sick the way some people ike our topic starter thinks of plants. Just because autotropism doesn't demand extencive thought processes is no reason to spit apon them and chew them up(pun intented). I suspect if they could run away they would, but again they are autotrophs and being immobile(in position on the ground) is very important to survival. The facts of autorophism are very evident in their specilized cells. I'd like you to skick yourself in the ground, and first find which way is sunward, and then where nurtients are. You have neurons, that makes you so much better, ha! As long as you demoralise those that can not defend themselves you are no more moral than what you give the plants.
I will not even metion the horrors of what we do to plants. Simply its 10 times worse than what we do to animals, and all because they don't scream "no, don't eat me".
I am a chemotroph, I have to eat other living things to survive. I can not in good concience eat only those far enough different from me that I can not relate to the way they live. I must eat all things equally.

Kachana · 03-11-2002, 05:48 PM

Hello again Punker, like the site by the way.

Anyway, I am interested as to the social and political ramifications you see deriving from your principle of conscious (i.e. able to suffer) animals having rights.

In particular, how many rights that humans enjoy would you extend to animals? If you would not extend animals ALL the rights you extend to humans, is it not then the case that you are acting hypocritically by discriminating conscious beings based on the number of legs they have? I will assume your argument is consistent and that you extend ALL animals equal rights.

If this is the case, then, would you, for instance, support animals having equal rights as humans as regards hospital treatment? Should a hedgehog have as much of a right to be on a waiting list as a girl needing a transplant, or alternatively, would you support taxation that gave funding to medical research proportionate to an animal's populations (leaving little left over for humans).

If you wouldn't do this then it is clear that you are inconsistent in the application of your principle, humans being placed above other animals.

Would you set up police squads that tried to stop animals killing each other, and implement food aid squads that fed animals on processed nutrients to keep them alive instead? If you wouldn't, then I assume that if a small group of babies were to be abandoned in a wood inhabited by wolves, you would not send out a rescue team for them either, as all animals have equal rights.

The list goes on, in short, do you think it is POSSIBLE to inhabit a world where all animals are conferred with equal rights? If so, do you have any links or information on what governmental policies might look like in such a world where your principle is consistently applied.

As far as plain vegetarianism goes, I would certainly like to see the suffering an animal went through minimised, and would even be willing to pay more for meat if animals could be painlessly killed. However I see large differences between human and animal suffering, most importantly being the advanced ability for human foresight and mental manipulation of events allowing inferences resulting in prolonged emotional distress, and in sum, my empathy for animals doesn't extend as far as to stop eating meat. That's my decision, it's neither right or wrong, it just is, and you are most welcome to think what you will of it.

Mecha_Dude · 03-11-2002, 05:54 PM

how bout cloning muscle tissue from the animal we want to eat, that way, you get meat, but no vegetarian complaints...

Aethernaut · 03-11-2002, 06:42 PM

"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others!" --Animal Farm, George Orwell

-SK

kctan · 03-12-2002, 04:23 AM

Plants do demonstrate their "emotions" by releasing pheromones (sp?) when they are excited or irritated especially when insects or animals are having them as breakfast, lunch or dinner.

These pheromones in some cases will alter the composition of the leaves themselves such that it becomes poisonous or highly unfavorable to those whom are consuming it.

This also demonstrates that the plant really knows whats happening to it & entails a certain degree of sentience.

Are vegetarians ignoring it just because they love to eat plants more than animals or is it because they can't accept the fact that there are more to what really constitute a sentient liveform other then animals (which humans are apart of) ?

What about fishes & shellfishes ? Do you see them suffering as much as animals when they are killed ?

What about your stand on eggs then ? Should you eat them or not depending whether its fertilised or not ? How would the mother hen feel knowing its eggs are being eaten ?

Pandora · 03-12-2002, 04:54 AM

Ok, so vegetarian cat food exist. But, what would you suggest I feed my python? He only likes frozen male white mice. I offered him a lettuce leaf last night and he wasn't very interested.

More seriously, I am very much in favour of better conditions for animals and tougher laws for people who cause unneccessary suffering. However, I rather like seeing cows and sheep in fields. If animals were not a food source, there would be a lot less reason to breed them.

I also don't believe that a strict vegetarian diet is completely healthy. In Italy it's impossible anyway - especially here in Tuscany.

Kachana · 03-12-2002, 05:27 AM

Here's another thought: what do you think causes the most suffering to an animal, a) dying of natural causes (e.g. eaten by another animal, disease, decline into old age etc.), or b) being killed in a slaughter house that abides by the standards implemented upon it?

Given that animals can't think about the future in the way we can (cows in a field do not know they are going to be slaughtered and don't procrastinate and stress about it), the suffering to take into consideration is that caused by death. I don't see that the cruelty of killing them compared to letting them die by themselves is anything like is made out.

99Percent · 03-12-2002, 10:10 AM

punkersluta's argument is basically that animals have consciousness and are aware of their pain and therefore deserve equal rights as humans.

I disagree. Animals are certainly aware of pain, but aren't aware of their existence the way humans beings are. And most importantly they do not possess volition. This makes us far superior to them and gives us the right to use animals for our best human interests. However we know they suffer pain, so we should be humane to animals. But that doesn't mean we can't kill them (with the least amount of pain possible) and use them for food or medical purposes.

Kachana · 03-12-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

However we know they suffer pain, so we should be humane to animals. But that doesn't mean we can't kill them (with the least amount of pain possible) and use them for food or medical purposes.[/QB]

Indeed. And as a DIRECT result of medical research using animals, Punkersluta will be able to protest against meat eating for an extra estimated 20 years!

Punker, do you ever use or intend to use the vast majority of medications for thousands of ailments that have been derived and are currently being derived from animal testing?

pepperlandgirl · 03-12-2002, 11:03 AM

Quote:

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 about choked to death on my bagel when I read this. Apparently you've never been on a farm.
Chickens will eat each other. Say a hen gets cut somehow and the other chickens sense her blood. Do you think they ignore her? No, they literally eat her alive.
I've seen it happen many times. Once it was our County Fair Grand Prize Winning Hen. Sad stuff.
Pigs will certainly eat each other, and you too. And yes, I'm basing that on more than just what I saw on Hannibal and Snatch.
Turkeys will also attack bleeding chickens, though I've never seen a bleeding turkey, so I can't speak as to what happens then. I once had to get inbetween a turkey crazed on blood and a rooster. It was actually scary.

So, in the future, why don't you stick to arguements you actually know about? This point made you look very silly.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2002, 05:48 PM	#31
PJPSYCO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rolla, Missouri Posts: 830	I find it really sick the way some people ike our topic starter thinks of plants. Just because autotropism doesn't demand extencive thought processes is no reason to spit apon them and chew them up(pun intented). I suspect if they could run away they would, but again they are autotrophs and being immobile(in position on the ground) is very important to survival. The facts of autorophism are very evident in their specilized cells. I'd like you to skick yourself in the ground, and first find which way is sunward, and then where nurtients are. You have neurons, that makes you so much better, ha! As long as you demoralise those that can not defend themselves you are no more moral than what you give the plants. I will not even metion the horrors of what we do to plants. Simply its 10 times worse than what we do to animals, and all because they don't scream "no, don't eat me". I am a chemotroph, I have to eat other living things to survive. I can not in good concience eat only those far enough different from me that I can not relate to the way they live. I must eat all things equally.

03-11-2002, 05:48 PM	#32
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	Hello again Punker, like the site by the way. Anyway, I am interested as to the social and political ramifications you see deriving from your principle of conscious (i.e. able to suffer) animals having rights. In particular, how many rights that humans enjoy would you extend to animals? If you would not extend animals ALL the rights you extend to humans, is it not then the case that you are acting hypocritically by discriminating conscious beings based on the number of legs they have? I will assume your argument is consistent and that you extend ALL animals equal rights. If this is the case, then, would you, for instance, support animals having equal rights as humans as regards hospital treatment? Should a hedgehog have as much of a right to be on a waiting list as a girl needing a transplant, or alternatively, would you support taxation that gave funding to medical research proportionate to an animal's populations (leaving little left over for humans). If you wouldn't do this then it is clear that you are inconsistent in the application of your principle, humans being placed above other animals. Would you set up police squads that tried to stop animals killing each other, and implement food aid squads that fed animals on processed nutrients to keep them alive instead? If you wouldn't, then I assume that if a small group of babies were to be abandoned in a wood inhabited by wolves, you would not send out a rescue team for them either, as all animals have equal rights. The list goes on, in short, do you think it is POSSIBLE to inhabit a world where all animals are conferred with equal rights? If so, do you have any links or information on what governmental policies might look like in such a world where your principle is consistently applied. As far as plain vegetarianism goes, I would certainly like to see the suffering an animal went through minimised, and would even be willing to pay more for meat if animals could be painlessly killed. However I see large differences between human and animal suffering, most importantly being the advanced ability for human foresight and mental manipulation of events allowing inferences resulting in prolonged emotional distress, and in sum, my empathy for animals doesn't extend as far as to stop eating meat. That's my decision, it's neither right or wrong, it just is, and you are most welcome to think what you will of it.

03-11-2002, 05:54 PM	#33
Mecha_Dude Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Everywhere... I'm Watching you... Posts: 1,019	how bout cloning muscle tissue from the animal we want to eat, that way, you get meat, but no vegetarian complaints...

03-11-2002, 06:42 PM	#34
Aethernaut Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 422	"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others!" --Animal Farm, George Orwell -SK

03-12-2002, 04:23 AM	#35
kctan Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Heaven, just assasinated god Posts: 578	Plants do demonstrate their "emotions" by releasing pheromones (sp?) when they are excited or irritated especially when insects or animals are having them as breakfast, lunch or dinner. These pheromones in some cases will alter the composition of the leaves themselves such that it becomes poisonous or highly unfavorable to those whom are consuming it. This also demonstrates that the plant really knows whats happening to it & entails a certain degree of sentience. Are vegetarians ignoring it just because they love to eat plants more than animals or is it because they can't accept the fact that there are more to what really constitute a sentient liveform other then animals (which humans are apart of) ? What about fishes & shellfishes ? Do you see them suffering as much as animals when they are killed ? What about your stand on eggs then ? Should you eat them or not depending whether its fertilised or not ? How would the mother hen feel knowing its eggs are being eaten ?

03-12-2002, 04:54 AM	#36
Pandora Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: UK Posts: 367	Ok, so vegetarian cat food exist. But, what would you suggest I feed my python? He only likes frozen male white mice. I offered him a lettuce leaf last night and he wasn't very interested. More seriously, I am very much in favour of better conditions for animals and tougher laws for people who cause unneccessary suffering. However, I rather like seeing cows and sheep in fields. If animals were not a food source, there would be a lot less reason to breed them. I also don't believe that a strict vegetarian diet is completely healthy. In Italy it's impossible anyway - especially here in Tuscany.

03-12-2002, 05:27 AM	#37
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	Here's another thought: what do you think causes the most suffering to an animal, a) dying of natural causes (e.g. eaten by another animal, disease, decline into old age etc.), or b) being killed in a slaughter house that abides by the standards implemented upon it? Given that animals can't think about the future in the way we can (cows in a field do not know they are going to be slaughtered and don't procrastinate and stress about it), the suffering to take into consideration is that caused by death. I don't see that the cruelty of killing them compared to letting them die by themselves is anything like is made out.

03-12-2002, 10:10 AM	#38
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	punkersluta's argument is basically that animals have consciousness and are aware of their pain and therefore deserve equal rights as humans. I disagree. Animals are certainly aware of pain, but aren't aware of their existence the way humans beings are. And most importantly they do not possess volition. This makes us far superior to them and gives us the right to use animals for our best human interests. However we know they suffer pain, so we should be humane to animals. But that doesn't mean we can't kill them (with the least amount of pain possible) and use them for food or medical purposes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.