SallySmith

Religious nut: There is a god.

Atheist: Until there is evidence to suggest that there might be a god, it is reasonable to conclude that there isn't...

Religious nut: No, it isn't. There is a god.

Bill Snedden

Ummm...let's try restating..

Until there is evidence to suggest that God MIGHT exist, it is reasonable to conclude that He doesn't.

Do you still think that Sally's point is so readily dismissed?

Not to denigrate your argument, but I don't think it really matters. We could stipulate that plants aren't actually conscious and still be in excellent condition to support our argument that meat eating is not immoral.

Our opponents (well, really only punkersluta as spin has yet to explain the basis for his/her differentiation) have drawn the line at conscious/not conscious. Okay, what about bugs? Are bugs conscious? Don't we kill scads of earthworms, spiders, beetles, etc, when we till the soil to plant or break it to build? What about their rights?

But even more importantly, why should the line be drawn at conscious/not conscious? Why not alive/not alive or human/not human? What is the justification for putting the line in one place and not another?

Regards,

Bill

[edited to remove unwarranted assumptions as to Sally's position and spin's sex]

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

MadKally

Wow, replace religious nut with vegetarian nut, change a few words around, and take another look.

Aethernaut

After 20 pages of this going nowhere I'm considering going back to eating meat.

-SK

SallySmith

Now wait a minute. The reason I got involved in this whole snafu is because, and I quote myself:

"...I also think that animal-eaters will resort to a multitude of ridiculous arguments to support their position. Please remember that I personally don't think an argument can be made to not eat animals, period. But arguing that plants are or may be conscious?"

SallySmith

I hope you are not referring to me because as I've said what feels like a billion times, so far I don't think the argument can be made across the board that eating meat is immoral.

SallySmith

Punkersluta has left the argument, I don't know where spin is, and somehow I'm the lone vegetarian arguing here when I don't even support the primary claim being made.

Maybe it's because I have the most boring job.

Aethernaut

I don't agree with the initial argument either but maybe I'll stay vegetarian, just so you aren't outnumbered Sally.

-SK

Koyaanisqatsi

Actually:

Plants exist. No one is questioning whether or not they exist. The question is whether or not they are conscious (i.e., self-aware) as a basis for considering their death and consumption by humans as morally "wrong" or not, in the same manner as Spin and Punkerslut were declaring was the case with animals.

Their entire argument is based upon the assertion that killing and consuming a conscious being is morally wrong. They then conveniently further asserted that they knew plants to not be conscious, therefore eating plants is not morally wrong.

Since there is no possible way for them to know conclusively whether or not plants are conscious, their argument (not their actions, but their argument) is, at best, duplicitous and hypocritical.

This isn't rocket science.

They have simply declared something to be true that cannot be demonstrated to be true, in order to rationalize their moral position.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Mageth

I disagree.

You disagree, but you left off the part "My opinion, based on the evidence I've seen, is that plants aren't conscious in the way we understand consciousness" when you quoted me.

Let's compare my statements with your scientist friend's statements, point by point:

Me: "My opinion, based on the evidence I've seen, is that plants aren't conscious in the way we understand consciousness."

The scientist: "Given the appropriate definition of consciousness, it is a fact that plants aren't conscious."

Me: "But consciousness is not very well understood, and there's no universal definition of it, as far as I know."

The scientist: "It's hard for me to answer because 'consciousness' is a rather poorly defined beastie." and "...the various definitions of consciousness..."

Me: "So it may be possible that plants have some form of consciousness, under some definition."

The scientist: "Given the sort of ill-defined, touchy feely one that most people have in mind, we can never be certain that plants aren't "conscious."...I doubt that this helps any, though, because it is far too easy to just equivocate the various definitions of consciousness to weasle your way out of any conclusions."

I claimed my comments were a "fair" summation. Other than that he uses the word "fact," which I prefer not to do, and that he seems to have a low opinion of possible other definitions of consciousness, which I may be more open to, I think I can fairly say that my comments were a "fair summation."

To say that it is possible that "plants have some form of consciousness, under some definition" seems silly to me. Of course you can create a definition so that something will fit it. You could do that with anything.

No more silly, to me, than saying "it is a fact that plants have no form of consciousness." We quite simply don't know everything there is to know about plants. So it may be possible that plants have "some" form of consciousness under "some" as-yet-undefined definition.

You can also narrow a definition to exclude something, which your scientists pretty much admits he does.

And last but not least, since you asked, this guy is a hop, skip, and a jump away from getting his PhD in neurobiology.

Thanks.