/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>13326066
Good. I only eat things that squeal so this news could really broaden my diet.

>>13326066
Vegans are hypocrites. They only care about cute piglets and such.

>>13326066
Vegans are literally always on suicide watch

>>13326066
veganbros...

>>13326066
you mean they SCREAM in terror when someone starts hacking into their living limbs?? And unlike animals they can't even flee or try to fight back! imagine being rooted in one place while someone saws into your body...

tsk, tsk, vegans....blood is on your hands

>>13326066
i'm gonna go to a vegan restaurant and eat a big giant steak in front of them and then just take a huge stinky smelly shit on the table and jerk off

Vegans like that tato salada

>>13326066
That doesn't mean anything.
Plants feel no pain and aren't conscious, but animals which get mass slaughtered do feel pain and are conscious.

>>13326213
Based retarded non-animist vegan, your mental gymnastics are delicious.

>>13326227
I'm not even a vegan, I just stated a simple fact which you weren't even able to address or refute.

OHNONONONO VEGANBROS THIS CANT BE HAPPENING

>>13326213
Now you need to define pain, because plants do respond to physical stimuli, that animals would consider painful.

>>13326240
>Now you need to define pain
Sensory stimuli caused by nociceptors. Plants don't have nociceptors.

>>13326213
>grass release a pheromones to attract predatory carnivore and omnivores to attack the herbivore eating
>this a involuntary reaction to being attacked
>not considered "feeling pain" due to not having a brain or central nervous system
>mussels retreat into their shell and don't come out until they are no longer being threatened
>this a involuntary reaction to being attacked
>considered "feeling pain" despite not having a brain or central nervous system

Why the double standard? If animals don't need brains or central nervous systems to be considered "advanced enough to feel pain" then why do plants?

>>13326247
He's not vegan tho

>>13326258
It's okay I'm vegan so we can debate in favor of each-others positions.

>>13326247
Nothing you said contradicted what I said. Mussels and other mollusks aren't sentient either and in the case of mussels and other bivalves there isn't even a central nervous system. And as you already said, those reactions are autonomic.
Also those survival mechanisms don't indicate pain and many plants evolved to be eaten or at least to have parts that are to be eaten in order to allow for better reproduction, such as all fruits.

>>13326261
Man imagine if animals evolved the same way, that'd suck shit. Like you eat some tendies and end up shitting out chicks

>>13326066
These sorts of clickbait articles come out every so often and depend on not understanding how these plant "behaviors" are actually fired off.
Long story short, if you applied this kind of thinking to humans you would be saying the way your skin responds to sunlight by tanning is an intelligent behavior for dealing with stress.
And I say this as someone who eats meat every day. I don't care about vegans, but falling for this kind of clickbait bullshit is bad.

>>13326066
Vegans have always known killing plants also causes harm. The goal is causing less harm be eating the vegetables instead of eating an animal that already ate vegetables to grow.

It's funny how rent free other people's diet choices are to you though.

>>13326303
I think the plants "squealing" was something about electrons or something, but I don't remember all the technicalities behind it.
Either way, nothing about it means that plants actually feel anything, let alone feel pain.

>>13326308
Plant agriculture kills more animals than animal agriculture agriculture unironically.
If you wanted to kill nothing you would live exclusively of of milk or something.

>>13326205
You, too?

>>13326303
That's not a clickbait article and has nothing to do with veganism. Also there have been studies that show individual cells have their reactions in a not dissimilar way to how you described. Single celled organisms are very complex despite their size, and we are colonies of single celled organisms.

>>13326318
>Plant agriculture kills more animals than animal agriculture agriculture unironically.
But less than meat production, and less cruelly.

>>13326303
In other words, you have no evidence that anything actually written in the article was wrong. You just wanted to virtue signal. Thanks.

>>13326318
Yeah which is why the way factory cows and pigs are raised on soy and corn grown on industrial farms makes it all worse. Industrial farming is bad on every level.

>fire causes reactions and reactions cause noise
Why are toothless antivegans so fucking stupid?

>>13326318
>If you wanted to kill nothing you would live exclusively of of milk or something.

It's called fruitarian. Gandhi was one ss well as many Jains.

>>13326318
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880904002944
>The effects of corn and wheat harvest on abundance, movement, disappearance, sex ratio and age structure of Akodon azarae were studied in cropfield–border systems. Sampling occurred both before and after harvest, in crops, in their weedy margins (borders) and in surrounding areas. The abundance of A. azarae decreased in fields between before and after harvest and increased along borders. Rodents moved among habitat patches, movement being higher as a consequence of harvest. There was no difference among habitats in terms of disappearance and sex ratio but changes occurred in age structure because of harvest. In response to harvest A. azarae was able to move from crops to borders, decreasing the mortality effects. The ability to respond to habitat changes allows A. azarae to maximize fitness in periodically disturbed habitats.
tl;dr mice don't just sit there and let themselves get murdered by grain harvesters. They, believe it or not, MOVE to safer locations. Population of rodents decreases in the harvested area and increases along the borders of that area, resulting in a net population without significant change.
Stop being such a self-deluding faggot and face reality. I eat meat. You can too. Least you can do though is accept you're not being forced to as the least of all possible evils compared to not eating meat because that's just tobacco lobby tier "doubt is our product" nonsense.

>>13326308
Food chain bad. Natural order of things bad. Pretending you're a herbivore when you're obviously not good. Tranny logic, lol.

>>13326326
No. Again, you're confusing a physiological reaction like tanning with a voluntary behavior. There is not a single thing in the actual paper supporting your view. Deal with it.

>>13326317
Whether we'd call it pain or not is debatable, but plants most certainly have a level of awareness and respond to stimuli, they just do it much more slowly.

That's what dead heading your roses is all about.

>>13326356
Do you believe your own skin has a "level of awareness?" It responds to stimuli.

>>13326343
I'm not vegan I just understand their actual beliefs having known many. /ck/ talks about them lie their weird alien boogeyman it's super weird and funny.

>>13326360
Yes because there have been studies on cells responding to stimuli as well in complex ways. Single celled organisms are small, not simple. >>13326323

New Scientist is a legit magazine. Not my thread but I've read it for years.

>>13326360
>Do you believe your own skin has a "level of awareness?" It responds to stimuli.
>>13326365
>Yes
G-Guys...? Is my body a trillion different consciously aware entities screaming out in pain every time I roll over in bed or take a hot shower? How do I stop?

>>13326365
>New Scientist is a legit magazine.
And there’s me thinking it’s illegitimate.
Thanks for the heads up, Jamal.

>>13326372
They're not screaming in pain but they are all aware. What you think of as (you) is the collective consciousness of them. Not even crazy pseudoscience, the world is extremely complex.

>>13326372
just bee yourselv

>>13326376
Given that it doesn't look like anyone else in the thread bothered to read it, it sounded worth pointing out.

>>13326324

beeing shredded into tiny pieces and mushed in your tunnel sure is a fine way to go out

>>13326379
Your conscious mind isn't the summation of automatic cellular responses to stimuli. That's like saying your leg kicking in response to a reflex hammer to the knee at a doctor's office is part of what builds up your conscious mind.

>>13326247
Bivalves have preganglia. Do you realize the entire purpose of a plant is to attract an animal to eat it and shit its seeds out to spread?

>>13326379
>>13326388
Also even a lot of the real processes that actually do involve cognition (unlike automatic reflexes / reactions) aren't part of your conscious mind. You're trying to make a connection here where there isn't one.

>>13326388
The responses aren't as simple and automatic as you think, and it's the entire system of that leads to the sense of consciousness.

>>13326396
No. It doesn't matter how simple or complicated it is. A reflex like a sneeze is not a building block for your conscious mind. A heart attack is not a building block for your conscious mind. A sunburn is not a building block for your conscious mind.

>>13326401
No neither of those are what I'm talking about. You're right on those counts.

If plants feel pain, eating meat is still morally unjustifiable because you need far more plants to feed animals to make meat than if you just ate the plants yourself. A plant based diet in a world where plants feel pain but you still need to eat to survive is the diet that causes the last amount of suffering. The vast majority of the world's farming crops wastefully go to feeding livestock animals.

Vegan smegan

>>13326074
based

>>13326213
cringe

>>13326066
>plants are capable of seeing
what the fuck are they even pretending to mean by this?

>>13326419
That's why fruitarians exist. Fruit is the part of the plant who's specific function is to be eaten.

>>13326448
hey dumbass

>>13326419
this is the dumbest thing i've read on /ck/ in a while.

>>13326452
Or you can just not be a retard and understand plants can't suffer whatsoever. The existence of survival mechanisms does not equal suffering.

>>13326448
Plants are covered in light receptors. Every way they act is a response to the light they receive.

>>13326457
Or like me simply accept everything suffers. You not wanting plants to feel suffering doesn't change anything.

>>13326454
Cool cope

>>13326464
oh so you’re admitting that fruits and vegetables are animals now?

>>13326497
Is that the best you could barf out?

>>13326066
same

>>13326497
Are you honestly retarded?

>>13326445
haha post number
buzzword
post number 2
buzzword
Epic post my friend! You surely contributed to my argument.

>>13326500
>>13326520
why are you dodging the question?

>>13326066
I couldn't imagine being vegan or anti-vegan. I don't think that animals should be needlessly hurt, but I also see no reason as to why I shouldn't be able to enjoy meat. I think factory farming should be abandoned which would reduce the available meat supply and raise prices, but I would never suggest getting rid of it all together. I understand that vegans are whiny faggots, but anti-vegans are the same and taking ignorant approaches towards science just to post a "hurr vegans on suicide watch" thread is just as obnoxious as a vegan insulting me for my meat consumption.

>>13326544
Not him, but what about it gave you the impression that he is claiming that plants are animals?

>>13326401
what about ghost limb syndrome? is your body not also a construct in your mind

>>13326419
I'll stick with whale meat thanks

>>13326544
That chart doesn't indicate that fruits and vegetables are animals in any way. That's why you seem retarded.

>>13326546
This guy gets it.

>>13326066
Omfg what are they doing to the plants, fucking MONSTERS!

ITT: vegans BTFO

>>13326632
Lol did you read the thread?

>>13326547
>>13326576
then why does it list them under ‘animals’?

>>13326653
It doesn't, you fucking retard. It lists how many animals died for them.

>>13326656
Idk man, maybe you should understand what you’re posting first...

>>13326662
Says the guy who is too retarded to read a chart.

>>13326682
Idk man it clearly lists them under animals...

>>13326653
>>13326662
0/10

>>13326686
So you can't read what the title says? Typical carnitard.

>>13326686
Idk man, you should clearly learn English.

>>13326696
>>13326699
Hey don’t attack me, you’re the ones who called fruits and veggies animals, I’m just explaining how you did

>>13326708
Yikes. Have consensual sex

>>13326708
Nobody called them animals, ESL faggot, it listed the number of animals killed for plants.
Get cancer.

no way veganbros...
how are we going to survive now?

>>13326717
>>13326719
Um anon, that’s the number of animals killed to reach a million calories, not how much was fed to animals...

>>13326729
>not how much was fed to animals
Nobody said that. Once again, learn English, you stupid third world faggot.

>>13326731
You just did anon. It’s ok if this study lists them as animals, you can just tell us that you don’t agree with that aspect.

>>13326731
You're the one who can't read the title of the chart in plain English. Your entire troll line here is that you're illiterate and yelling at everyone else. Grow the fuck up and at least get decent bait.>>13326731

>>13326708
you're not very smart are you

Another article that confuses symbolic intelligence with intelligent emergent behavior.

What's next, give a dental plan to your Roomba?

>>13326737
>>13326743
Anons, I’m a living breathing creature that feels pain. Being so mean isn’t very vegan of you. I think we should all take a break to cool off and come back in about an hour or so to discuss this further, with no hostility this time. Alright?

>>13326393
Of course, how do you not love eating wood and bark. I personally love dandilions because without my help there is no way their seeds could ever be spread

>>13326733
ESL fags should be rangebanned

>>13326737
Yes, I am the one baiting for explaining a chart right.

>>13326751
just want to point out to you that the chart is counting how many animals die in making 1 million calories of a type of food, so if fruits and vegetables were considered animals by the chart, as you say, it would be claiming that 2.55 potatoes is enough to make 1 million calories
now with that in mind do you want to continue being a retard or fuck off

>>13326751
Mouthbreathing copeture

I'm gonna do it bros. I'm gonna go vegan. The Rogan podcast was paleo assblast. Where do I start?

>>13326246
Nice circular definition retard.

>>13326795
Nice argument, friend.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T TAKE A SHIT IN YOUR OWN PANTS ON PURPOSE!!!!! YOU CAN'T UNLOAD A FRESH DUMPAROONI RIGHT INTO YOUR DRAWERS JUST BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO!!!!! NOT THE POOPINO!!!! NOT THE ABRA CADABRA DING DANG BUTTHOLE SHITTY PIE TURDS!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>13326686
vegans btfo!

>>13326785
If you're not baiting you are genuinely illiterate.

"Number of animals killed to produce one million calories" this indicates how many animals die in the process of producing certain foods.

What the colors mean is then explained, red is animals killed for slaughter, yellow is animals killed during harvest. The chart doesn't say animals are fruits, it says animals are killed harvesting fruits.

Seriously how can you be so fucking stupid that a simple chart like this makes no sense to you?

>>13326908
Are you too retarded to follow a reply chain, retard? I am not the one who said that animals are fruits, you stupid fuck. Learn how to read.

>>13326799
He's right though. They respond to stimuli. Saying your response to being bitten by an insect is pain and a plant's response to being bitten is not pain is now semantics at best. Both experience the bite and respond to it.

>>13326079
kek

>>13326717
>>13326719
>>13326743
You're sameposting is so obvious ;)

>>13326922
He's not right, pain is a stimulus, but not all stimuli are pain. Plants have no nociceptors, therefore they feel no pain. How fucking difficult is this to grasp?
>>13326933

>>13326936
That's not the only thing that defines pain. We're talking in English, words have meanings.

>>13326318
Meattards always love this argument. It just shows how stupid they really are. You know that feeding animals to slaughter requires more plant foods than growing crops for human consumption ? Hence, animal agriculture harms animals in crop fields to a greater extent, and it also harms all the animals that are slaughtered for, "muh taste buds"

>>13326952
>muh semantics
Obviously the talk was about physical pain. But even then, plants can't feel discomfort either.

>>13326967
But that's the point. Plants clearly experience discomfort because they respond to things like insects biting their leaves or immature flowers being picked off. Plants react very very similarly to animals, just more slowly.

>>13326213
>aren't conscious
are you sure nigger?

>>13326986
If you believe this then you believe individual body parts of your own are also conscious entities in their own right. Your skin reacts in a very similar way to sunlight for example. It responds to stimuli in a way that is not part of your own cognitive processes, but almost everyone considers this sort of response not indicative of consciousness.

>>13326066
who eats a kektus? do americans really?

>>13327017
Yes that's true too. Your skin does react to stimulus. As said earlier, single celled organisms are small but they are by no means simple.

>>13327029
Well personally I don't believe my skin is its own conscious entity. I also don't believe its responses to stimuli have anything to do with my own cognitive processes. I think it's possible to bite the bullet and argue you do believe skin is its own conscious actor, but I'm more certain you can't claim that sort of response is part of "you" as a conscious actor. Your options are really either to not accept skin or other body parts as their own entities of awareness or else do accept them that way but as distinct from your own mind, and the latter sounds a bit goofy to try to argue with a straight face.
I disagree though that complexity is the issue here Weather phenomena can get extremely complex and I wouldn't use that to infer even the slightest bit of awareness going on for them because it's not about how many details are convoluting the situation but instead whether or not there's actually a mechanism in place for conscious cognition. It's the product of a particular kind of brain activity, not just a magic result that pops out any times things are complicated enough to make you feel like you could maybe not know enough about what's going on to not immediately rule out magic.

>>13326464
imagine being this vegtarded

>this kills only 1.5 animals

LMAO

>>13326996
Yes, it's a scientific fact.
>>13326986
Plants don't perceive those things as discomfort because they don't have a central nervous system nor a brain, they can't think.

>>13327110

Plants enjoy music and docile voices directed at them. They have feelings, murderer. Ignore the science if you want.

>>13326453

subtle genius

Plants don't experience suffering because suffering is a sensation developed to push sapient beings toward actions that reduce it. That is, it pressures them to make decisions that will benefit them. Plants do not make decisions. A plant cannot choose not to grow away from the sun. Its actions are merely a response to stimuli. It wouldn't make any sense from a evolutionary perspective for a living thing to experience suffering when its actions are automatic.

>>13327073
Not your skin as a whole, but each individual cell is it's own entity. All those cells as well as all the other types and the many different bacteria are all what cumulatively add up to "you". It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's the way it is.

>>13327167
>Plants enjoy music and docile voices directed at them
Oh really, what do they hear with?

>>13326213
>plants feel no pain/lack consciousness
How do you know?

>>13327266
Because they don't have a central nervous system and no nociceptors (pain receptors).

>>13326205
B & RP

>>13326213
You literally cannot prove that, you FUCKING LIAR

>>13327283
>Notice animals feel pain
>Test how they feel it, conclude it must be nociceptors
>Notice plants feel pain
>Conclude they don't because their mechanism of it is not identical to that of animals
Your ontology is backwards, retard

>>13327294
https://www.britannica.com/story/do-plants-feel-pain

>>13327306
Nobody noticed that plants feel pain tho.

>>13327308
>An internet opinion piece vaguely reiterated the points of half of this thread so I am right

>>13327306
This. You can't prove they don't feel pain, just that we don't know how they do -if- they do, but we do know that they physically respond to negative stimuli.

>>13327308
Who cares?

>>13327312
When you harm them, they cry out. They have some kind of receptor to notice when something hurts them and it sends a reaction through the rest of their body. That sounds like pain to me, and fits every definition of pain except an ass-backwards empiricist idea of it built post-hoc.

>>13326523
very cringe and bluepilled

>>13327326
If you believe this then you believe your skin is behaving consciously when it reacts to sunlight.

>>13327341
An argument of consciousness is an entirely separate can of worms, and if you think that debate is simpler than this one, you must have never read a book in your life.
Plants can feel pain to a degree comparable to animals, just via different mechanisms. That's my statement. Changing the argument to consciousness is going to ensure no serious statements can be laid out at all.

>>13327322
>>13327326
The "distress call" is a chemical response to a mechanical input, same as turning towards the sun is a response to a photoreceptor input.
That doesn't prove that they feel pain, but the fact that they have no sensors to perceive pain proves that they feel none.

>>13327351
>fish don't have lungs therefore thy can't breath
your logic

>>13327351
See
>>13327306
Your idea of pain is flawed because you assume the only valid mechanism is an animal's. If we investigated pain in plants first and found their mechanism, you'd be sitting here arguing that animals can't possibly feel pain because they lack the same mechanisms as plants.
You are working backwards. Define pain without the word "nociceptors" and maybe we can get somewhere.

>>13327364
they*

>>13327364
Can you also actually refute my argument?

>>13327347
If there's no conscious awareness of what you're calling pain then it's irrelevant to the question of suffering you dishonest retard.

>>13326213
Don't you dare sit there and tell us what is right and wrong! You...you..plant killer!

>>13327365
You're just playing the semantics game again and ignoring the anatomy of plants as well as its implications.

>>13327383
Are you pretending we're absolutely certain that animals are conscious, and to what degree if they are? Because we aren't. I don't even know if YOU'RE conscious.

>>13326205
based

>>13327399
Every argument of anything like this is a semantics game. I could easily accuse you of the same thing, but I didn't, because that's irrelevant.
>ignoring the anatomy of plants
I'm deeply sorry they don't fit into your narrow empiricist box, anon.

>>13327400
All I've established is that what you're citing for plants as evidence of suffering is not any greater than what you could cite for your own skin. You can choose to bite the bullet and act like your skin is doing something equivalent to what animals do in response to stimuli only through different routes not involving a brain or you can do what most everyone does implicitly on this topic which is not attributing that sort of behavior or awareness to plants or your own skin.
The choice is yours.

>>13327400
>I don't even know if YOU'RE conscious.
Humans are both conscious and sapient, feel free to head to /x/ if you disagree with this and with science.
Also stop comparing plants to animals, animals can have a vertebra while plants can't.

>>13327410
>I could easily accuse you of the same thing
No you can't because I cited scientific facts which you weren't able to refute.

>>13327415
>Also stop comparing plants to animals, animals can have a vertebra while plants can't.
"Can have a vertebra" is not a meaningful ontological characteristic of animals. Octopi cannot have a vertebra. They are animals, and they feel pain, but they are just as likely to have a vertebra as a rosebush is.
The point I'm making here is that all of the arguments being put forward in this thread are ridiculous and easily identified as such. Somebody please define pain in a way that A) doesn't work backwards by presupposing animals are the only ones capable of feeling it and B) excludes plants.

>>13327439
>someone please confirm my biases and capitulate to my every retarded whim
Nah

>>13327256

Talk to your cabbages Pytor.

https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/do-plants-hear

>>13327414
My skin probably has a higher IQ than you desu

>>13326419

my cousin is a farmer, ran her specifically. went to school for it. posted a real good graph awhile back showing how cows eat protein and grains that we cant actually digest, turning otherwise unsusable nutrition into useable protein

>>13327433
>I cited scientific facts
You tried to use them as a misguided bludgeon, and then tried to lend extra weight to your argument by calling it scientific. You don't know fuck all about science. I'm a physicist.

>>13327448
Wow what an argument

>>13326419
>>13327445

pic relate

>>13327442
If you could read, you'd realize I was asking for somebody to present an argument contrary to my beliefs, because nobody has and I'm genuinely interested in hearing one

>>13327443
This literally says that they can't hear and only react to mechanical vibrations.

>>13327444
Trips checked.
I'd be OK with anyone being consistent and asserting their skin was its own consciously behaving actor. I think that's a strange belief, but it'd be consistent with the plant shit anons are trying to convince themselves of in this thread.
Personally I think that's a bit too good to be true that any one of these clickbait articles is ever going to suddenly prove we're all doing the best of all moral decisions by eating meat. These all come across as lazy attempts to self-delude so you don't feel bad about participating in animal suffering. Part of eating meat though should be recognizing what the animals go through is a real thing that probably isn't always great for them as a bare minimum way of respecting the providers of the food that keep you alive.

>>13327463
>Somebody please define pain in a way that A) doesn't work backwards by presupposing animals are the only ones capable of feeling it and B) excludes plants.
Yes. And this is where I said nobody is going to capitulate to such retarded standards just to satisfy your biased viewpoint

Want me to illustrate it?

>>13327472
>only react to mechanical vibrations
I mean that's what our ears do too.

>>13327445
>>13327460
Now *this* is a decent argument for meat eating.
The reason I personally eat meat is similar. I don't think it's ideal morally, but I got intestinal problems and meat is recommended on the low residue diet while vegetables are warned against because they don't digest well and leave behind lots of irritant material that can make intestinal ulcers and inflammation worse.

>>13327488
Which is why it isn't your ears themselves that are conscious.

>>13327488
Yes, but we have ears to convert those vibrations to electrical signals while plants have no ears.
For plants it's more like a touch than hearing anything.

>>13326213
Im not sure why that makes a difference.

>>13326227
>Based retarded

>>13327460
Wow its almost as if we utilize the fields to actually grow something edible for humans like just crazy shit out of my ass

>>13327486
But those two requirements are the absolute bare minimum to assert that plants can't feel pain. Are you saying there is no argument to be made that plants can't feel pain?

>>13327512
Yes? Do you realize what point you're arguing, Dr.?

>>13326205
I did that last week

>>13326523
Complaining about "cringe" and "based" is like complaining about temperature

>>13327472

So they're aware of and respond to the soundwaves your mouth produces. Noted. Talk to your plants.

>>13327495

TIL plants are ears.

>>13327600
They're aware of the sound waves touching them, it's the same to them as a fly sitting on their leaves.

>>13326247
Plant can not move away from harmful stimuli. What purpose would pain serve for a creature that cannot move beyond tormenting it?

I'm not saying plants don't experience life in meaningful ways, they probably do in my opinion, but I highly doubt they can suffer or feel pain.

you all post in this thread as if you actually give a shit about the living world around you

>>13327110
Plants to perceive it as discomfort on some level, that's why they react how they do.

>>13327312
They did though.

>>13327636
They have other defenses they employ when under insect attack etc. A plant needs to know if parts of it's structure are being attacked or damaged so it can act accordingly. That's exactly the same way animals use the sensation of pain, they just have different responses because they're different kinds of beings.

Pain is really just our word for distress signals that alert when something potentially bad is or has happened. You can give it a different name but plants also use distress signals to alert when something bad is or has happened.

>>13327924
There's a distinction between pain and suffering.
Monkeys electrocuted in a way that can be prevented if said monkeys keep on pulling a lever before the next scheduled jolt develop ulcers from the stress / cortisol. Monkeys in contrast who are given a dummy lever that does nothing don't develop ulcers because they have no choice but to receive the shocks.
This relates to why intuitively we tend to behave as though an animal like a monkey can suffer while we tend to behave as though a plant can't.

>>13327910
They didn't alright just leave it

>>13327098
If your point is "these things are not animals" then you are very stupid.

>>13326079
lmao not wholly inaccurate

>>13326205
Please film it

>>13326066

>Would we be so cavalier about cutting down trees if they could scream?

>We would if they screamed all the time and for no reason.

>>13326213
You cannot exist without doing so at the expense of something else. The only thing to do is stop existing

>>13326213
t. Livestock

>>13327989
Of course. I eat food so hot it's intensely painful because it's fun. But I still receive those pain signals. Naturally plants respond very differently but that doesn't necessarily make it not pain.

It's not like it's a bad thing. Pain is a fundamental and important part of life, it's what drives evolution.

>>13327616

No, not the same at all. Some plants are aware of flies sitting on them, and eat them. Hmm. Critical thinking isn't your forte, huh...

>>13327989

Pain and suffering are human experiences unique to us. What a horse thinks is painful, and what I think is painful, are different things.

>>13328799
>What a horse thinks is painful
>a horse thinks
"thinks"

>>13328530

>>13328799
>Pain and suffering are human experiences unique to us.
Nah, that's bullshit. A monkey or a horse or a dog isn't so alien from ourselves that it doesn't have comparable instances of pain or suffering It's debatable how far down to more primitive brain structures you want to go before beginning to doubt the presence of each of those things but almost no one would say a horse doesn't meet that cutoff.
>>13328530
>Of course. I eat food so hot it's intensely painful because it's fun. But I still receive those pain signals. Naturally plants respond very differently but that doesn't necessarily make it not pain.
No. The entire point was to say that pain is different from suffering. You're talking about pain not being bad which misses that point. I'm saying even if you call something plants do "pain" it's not the issue because suffering is the issue. If you don't actually have the capacity to suffer (as opposed to just having a physiological reaction to stimuli) then that's not the same thing.
Which isn't even to say it really makes sense to call anything plants do "pain" either. But the point is you don't need to bother dealing with the pain question when they fail the more important suffering question. Suffering is contingent on being able to make a decision. The monkeys that can decide to act to prevent a shock get ulcers from the psychological stress while the monkeys that still get shocked no matter what they do maybe somewhat surprisingly *don't* get ulcers and don't suffer over it. Plants doing what they do in all the cases described in this thread have been physiological reactions like your skin tanning in the sunlight. Even a venus flytrap which can move to eat flies isn't really deciding to move. It's reflexively snapping in place, like your leg kicking out when you hit the knee with a reflex hammer.

>>13328876

>I'm a monkey horse or dog

No you're a human, stop projecting your personal feelings on to animals. They don't understand you, catlady.

>>13326066
My unironically carnivore dad ate more plants and he got better and went to the restroom more.
Not a shitty gotcha, its just plants are unironically good for you lawl

>>13328958
Pain and suffering aren't personal feelings you retard. They're an extremely generalized distinct pair of phenomena that are easy to prove with that monkey shocking experiment.

>>13328876
>The entire point was to say that pain is different from suffering.

That's what I was agreeing with lol

>>13326213

>>13326205
>stealing Sv3rige's gimmick

>>13328793
>Critical thinking isn't your forte, huh...
Says the faggot who thought that plants can actually hear music. Fuck off.
Also the mechanism that allows venus fly traps to eat flies (if that's what you're referring to) has nothing to do with the plant's awareness, it's just the fly touching a certain amount of the plant's sensors and then causing it to react and close itself. The plant doesn't actually hear or see anything, it's just a mechanical automated response, which is also why it can't tell the difference between a fly and a human finger.

>>13329343
Nobody even proved me wrong, all you faggots did was play the semantics game and brought up irrelevant shit like "hurr horses feel pain, monkeys feel pain" which doesn't even make sense because vertebrates have brains, a central nervous system and pain receptors, all things plants lack and would need to perceive pain.
>b-but they have defense mechanisms to prevent being eaten!
They don't feel pain when a bug chews at them, it's an automated mechanism.

>>13330115
Not that guy, but I'm wondering if it matters at all. Everything any "living" thing does is a reaction to stimuli they receive. Do we sympathize with animals that (according to your definition at least) can suffer, simply because we can relate to that feeling or because we recognize that they also want to live (in comfort)?

If it's the first reason, then I guess humans are simply projecting their feelings on other beings to benchmark if it's relevant. If it's the second reason, then I wonder why we don't sympathize with all living things. They all want to live and (most) have mechanisms in place that can prolong their lifespan as much as they can.
What I'm really trying to ask is if the importance of suffering in this argument about veganism is actually because we're deciding if the being in question is "human" enough to live next to us in this world or simply because we think all life matters.

>>13326066
>tell people for years plants don't want to die and are capable of feeling pain based on science
>always gets dismissed
gonna just say they'll ignore this, too. pretty much everyone "loves" science until it destroys their stupid world beliefs. guess what: you gotta kill shit if you wanna live. even just breathing in kills tons of microbes. fucking cry a river, faggots, but life is death.

>>13326213

plants ARE conscious, and do feel pain.

>>13326246
>Plants don't have nociceptors.
Bio major here, neither do non-mammals. Nociceptors are exclusively a part of the mammalian nervous system. Other animals and plants have other ways of detecting noxious stimuli in the environment.

>>13330115
That's like saying you don't feel pain when an insect bites you, it's just an automatic response. When a plant is bitten, or it's unpolinated flowers are plucked, it knows something is awry and acts to counter act it.

You can run in circles saying that's not pain because a plant doesn't use the same methods to detect the attack, but you're the one talking semantics. Plants don't have brains, but they are aware of their environment and respond to it in many ways.

>>13331139
pain serves a purpose, it either forces the creature to protect injured body part from further injury of moving it, or makes it urgently get away from the harm
animals can make decisions of where to move it makes sense for them to feel pain

what use would a plant have of pain if it can't do anything fast

they do things like pumping their structures full of poison when they get chewed on, but what difference would feeling pain make opposed to an automatic response?

it only makes sense if plants are able to make decisions about their own bodies

>>13331160
>what use would a plant have of pain if it can't do anything fast

Plants don't do anything fast, but they do have various defenses they employ when under attack. Whatever signals the plant uses to understand that it's under threat and needs to do something would be functionally the same as pain for us, regardless what exact mechanism it is.

>>13331160
face it all you can really eat is honey, aka flower sperm

>>13329169
With a monkey which are within the same family as us. You aren't understanding though, there is a massive difference between conscious feeling of pain and what an animal feels. To an animal pain is a stimulus that lets them know to get away from whatever is causing the stimulus to help them survive. Human pain is vastly different thanks to this massive grey matter we have in our brain, that lets us feel all kinds of complex emotions and conceptualize all kinds of ways that whatever is happening will affect us in the future which intensifies pain and suffering.

>>13331174
functionaly absolutely, but it is the qualia that matters

wheter the creature can have a subjective experience and if that is likened to agony

>>13331180
but as long as the creature is conscious, which mammals and birds certainly are, the suffering it experiences is the worst suffering it is capable of experiencing

a non-human doesn't experience the world as something "less than human", for them their experience is complete

>>13331180
in the middle ages for a while they believed animals didn't really feel pain. use to dissect them live.

>>13331181
>wheter the creature can have a subjective experience and if that is likened to agony

Yeah and plants do.

>>13331191
i dont think we can say it so certainly but its best to avoid harming them if you can avoid it

>>13331187
Plants are also conscious.

>>13331187
When I say Concious I mean a thinking being that has a personal identity. Not a stupid animal that thinks that there is another animal there when it sees its reflection. There are very few animals like this and even those tests are rocky, Nearly all animals operate like machines just reacting to stimuli and operating on instinct.

>>13331160
When you get a sunburn, that's just an automatic response that you can't necessarily do anything about quickly but it still hurts. That's all pain is, signals from one part telling the whole that something is wrong. Plants very clearly do this as well.

honey bees are little mean mfers, theyll sting the fuck out of you. if they can't get you theyll sting your clothes

>>13331195
We can say so with total certainty.

>>13331220
A plant isnt going to sit there thinking about how it wont be able to sit down and relax while its trying to sit down and relax making it worse for itself.

>>13331222
nice digits there anon

>>13331215
>using the mirror as a standard of consciousness and making people believe an animal that doesn't understand a mirror is like a machine

a crime tier offense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akE2Sgg8hI8

>>13331281
>There are very few animals like this and even those tests are rocky
duuuuuur, the video shows a cat playing with its ear, in what dimension does this show the cat understanding that is its reflection?

some extreme Hindu will only eat dead plants. i guess they have to die naturally.

>>13331294
self directed behavior in response to mirror is passing the mirror test

this is also how elephants passed as they have no particular interest in removing a dot on their forehead

>>13331294
less clear but
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okswxxX_6QU

all the cats look behind themselves in response to the filter

>>13331317
It isn't though, it is literally a cat touching its ear.
>>13331334
Confused cats look at their owners after seeing confusing images they cannot comprehend. I know you want this so bad cat lady but you are clearly anthropomorphising cats seeing as you have these vids lined up. You can only think in what a human would experience and apply it to the cats based on their reaction which could be for a number of reasons. Well done.

>>13331353
the cats dont react to seeing themselves as if they were other cats - but they do react to the human and look at the human

but if you want to disregard everything that proves otherwise, and keep believing that animals are unsensing machines, i guess nothing will change your mind

>>13331356
>but they do react to the human and look at the human
No shit? The test is to recognize themselves not their slightly distorted owner.
>disregard
You haven't posted anything that proves anything?

>>13331356
Even Chimps still attack mirrors alot of times, is that because they recognize themselves and want to beat their own ass? People like you perceive what they want to perceive.

>>13331363
chimps and even native humans have to learn how a mirror works

both are very capable of learning it

mirror test proves conscience, but not passing it doesnt disprove it

at most it means: animal cant understand its own reflection

listen, i know animals are sentient and plants are probably sentient. but i gotta eat

>>13326213
They breathe, they release distress signals via chemicals into the air when cut in order to lure animals in, and now we find that they also literally squeal when stressed.

What does that sound to you? They're not like rocks that reacts like a living being when crushed (unless studies prove otherwise).

>>13331381
thats fine
animal death is part of life as well as plant death

but justifying it with this outdated idea "they arent conscious mirror proves it lol just bio robots" thats retarded and also a bad argument - it would be wrong to kill them if they were conscious?

>>13331367
>but not passing it doesnt disprove it
You sound like a god fearing christian.
>animal cant understand its own reflection
Ok? The mirror test is not a 100% proof way of determining what is conscious anyway. Especially in 5 second clips of confused cats. You don't know if a cat is simply touching its ear or doing it to determine whether the cat over there is actually itself. Nothing proves one or the other. The mere fact that the cat is looking at itself means nothing, you know its looking at itself, You don't know if it knows.

>>13331225
But the plant does certainly feel that damage has been done and works on repairing itself. That distress signal is pain. That's all pain is on a fundamental level.

>>13331391
>justifying
I don't justify my eating habits, why would I? Im saying you are wrong about how animals operate, there is a difference.

>>13331304
You might be thinking of the Jains, they are mostly fruitarian (like Ghandi) since fruit is made to be eaten.

>>13331399
I only brought up the videos because they are showing cats (that never passed the dot mirror test) clearly reacting to their reflection in ways other than "as if it was an other cat", and only because you brought it up as a proof that animals are "dumb" and "unconcious" because mirrors.

I don't need mirrors to understand animals are conscious, the whole scientific community is in agreement that at the very least all mammals and birds possess consciousness and animal welfare laws are based around this.

animals are just like us, but i'm eat them anyway.

>>13331412
>I only brought up the videos because they are showing cats (that never passed the dot mirror test) clearly reacting to their reflection in ways other than "as if it was an other cat", and only because you brought it up as a proof that animals are "dumb" and "unconcious" because mirrors.
But you are inherently wrong, Jesus, the videos mean absolutely nothing. The fact that you can't see that tells me you want this badly because you are an animal lover. Stop anthropomorphising animals. I said the mirror test proves nothing, I said very few animals are like that and that the test is rocky anyway because its mostly bullshit and it is still humans(like you) determining what is understanding itself ultimately, until an animal can open its mouth and communicate its thoughts no one fucking knows, and videos like this only serve to prove how much no one knows. I already said once that when I said consciousness I was referring to a thinking being that has a personal identity.

There is no objective morality so who fucking cares

>>13331431
>Stop anthropomorphising animals.
now assuming mammals are conscious, something that the whole scientific community agrees on is antropomorphism?

consciousness is subjectivity and subjectivity cannot be scientificaly measured - at most you can make assumptions based on what you can observe, and if you observe an animal like a dog and conclude its equal to a machine and dont have subjectivity and experiences, i have nothing else to say

keep believing what you want

>>13326066
while i agree that oblivious animal lives are expendable, i really don't think plants feel pain because they can't really respond to attacks. they never evolved to have pain messages because it can't benefit them

>>13331399
Not him but to say something isn't conscious because it can't recognize itself in a mirror is a hilariously bad test.

idk, but that sausage was really tasty. rip pig bro

>>13331454
consciousness is a system of reality perception, life forms and bioelectricity are 100% corporeal

>>13331405
No it isnt. You dont repair yourself when you feel pain. It is literally just a signal

>>13326213
>and are conscious.
Should have quit while you were ahead.

>>13331454
>like machines
>equal to
For all intents and purposes animals operate as machines. Deal with it.
>at most you can make assumptions based on what you can observe
Yes assumptions based on what you observe, or in less scientific terms, Making shit up because thats what you think you saw.

>>13331386
>They breathe
No they don't, they do photosynthesis, it's the exact opposite of breathing.
They don't even really squeal, they just called it like that to bait people into reading their shitty article.
>>13331485
I said they aren't tho, because they aren't. They can't sit there and just start to think about shit.

>>13331487
Humans operate as machines

>>13331493
Humans operate as computers, its different.

>>13331497
humans have denser neural networking, that is all. this "unique human perception" is just your temporal lobes, your abstract thought

>>13331483
You absolutely repair yourself, blood coagulates near a cut so it can stop bleeding and your body can heal. Plants do the exact same kinds of things.

>>13331485
Animals are unquestionably conscious.

>>13331501
>denser neural networking he says
>thats all he says
Cats have 300 million neurons while a human has 86 billion.

>>13326213
>plants are just automatons
vegan descartes is that you?

>>13331492
>>13331485
Nevermind, I've misread it. But yes, the animals that get mass slaughtered (cows, pigs, chickens) are all vertebrates and conscious.

>>13331520
There are capabilities humans have that animals don't, consciousness just isn't one of them.

>>13326213
The harm and cruelty that vegans subject plants to will be known as the holocaust of the 21st century.

Trees actually have quite complex communication networks and mother trees will sometimes help their children by sending extra nutrients if they think it's in a favorable location.

>>13331557
Forgot link
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden-internet

>>13331516
Of course you repair yourself you retard, that has nothing to do with you receiving pain signals

>>13331497
Computers are machines. But you operate as well as a potato camera

>>13326066
Worst case scenario is they'll all transition to the keto diet because vegans only care about having a diet that lets them feel superior over everyone else and can try to convince you to join their cult every opportunity they get.

>>13326066
maybe they're celebrating? they could be masochists

>>13326213
>Plants feel no pain and aren't conscious

>>13331664
Yeah, And humans are also animals, stop trying to breakdown my analogy anyway, an analogy always breakdown at somepoint dipshit.

>>13326303
>And I say this as someone who
Anyone who says this is 99% guaranteed to be falseflagging to sway people. You're not fooling me vegan.

>>13331444
based trips and based point of view. people that think morality is objective are the most unsufferable retards

>>13331707
Do a media bias check on the source. The article is true about plants making noises, but the article uses misleading clickbait titles. It's not about pain. It's about dehydration mechanisms in the plant emitting noises.

As a vegan I'm excited about farmers being able to use this info to reduce dehydration stress in their crops and feed me more delicious hot house tomatoes.

>>13326247
>Why the double standard?
The invertabrate issue is not a settled one within veganism. Many vegans will eat honey, for example.

>>13331749
Some morality is objective. We are all born with a sense of fairness and compassion. Don't cut yourself on that edge neetfreak

>>13327445
The grains are only being grown to feed cows though

>>13331791
Those aren't vegans because honey isn't vegan

>>13326213
pick on someone your own size, instead of some defenseless little plant

>>13331799
>Some morality is objective.
broofs?
>We are all born with a sense of fairness and compassion.
This is literally not true. Yes many values are extremely common, but there are still legitimate psychopaths out there and whatnot.

>>13331847
How do you know I am not a plant sized freak in real life?

>>13331864
There are people who will disagree with objective truth. This does not make objective truth false. This makes those people mentally ill. Such as yourself, and Trump supporters.

>>13331897
>reee drumf!

>>13331660
Yes it does.

>>13331917
He has a point. Trump spreads objective lies and his supporters accept many of them as truth.

>>13331928
No it doesn't. Cellular regeneration literally happens all the time and is independent of pain receptors

>>13331897
Not trying to be edgy, but I don't believe in objective morality. If it's so objective, it wouldn't be a problem to explain why, right? So please go ahead and try, I'm genuinely interested.

>>13331946
Objective morality is about net happiness and continuation of the species. Net happiness and continuation of the species happens when you stop raping your sister, stop aimlessly killing human beings, and respect and preserve clean air and water for future generations. These are universally agreeably good things, objectively. If you disagree,. It doesn't matter because it's objectively true, and is still true whether you and the trumptards coal mining cousin humpers want it to be true or not. It has nothing to do with the Bible and god, tho the Bible coincidentally got a lot of it right.

>>13332051
The reason I disagree on the objectivity of morality is because it's based on a system on subjective morality. People can live together in a society because of an underlying mutual trust, not because that is the way life was "designed" to be. This mutual trust I mention is based on compromise, where others can trust you won't hurt them as long you don't hurt them either.

Lets say you want to form a group with other people to perform certain tasks. If you are going to be working together with these people, you want to be sure that none of them brutally murder you and steal all of your possesions. Suprise surprise, the other people also don't want that to happen to them, so before you work together you decide make some rules that ban killing and stealing. If someone were to decide to break these rules, the group would automatically feel threatened by that person and deal with them accordingly. And I'm sure societies are built up in the same way as this example.The things you mention are all things that I think initially came forth from multiple people's self-preservation instincts having the same goal and working together so it doesn't happen to them. I have my doubts that all we do is based on some hivemind where we do what is best for society.

And to your point about whether someone agrees or disagrees with something objective, if they feel like they are not part of the group in question, those morals will not apply to them I would think. A mother bear most likely will not care if your sister is raped or murdered, but if you were threatening her cubs she would start caring about that I would assume.

>>13332162
>you want to be sure that none of them brutally murder you and steal all of your possesions. Suprise surprise

Whenever you find yourself saying "surprise surprise" ask yourself if you could replace that with "because that's objective morality"

>A mother bear most likely will not care if your sister is raped or murdered
OMG.. I can't believe how rock solid this argument. I lost the objective morality argument due to speciation. Damn you Darwin. No seriously. Stop being retarded you edge Lord faggot.

>>13332226
Yes, I said surprise surprise because individuals have a self preservation instinct, as in they try to keep themselves alive. That is an objective fact, but not the same thing as objective morality. It's still subjective if a group of individuals come to a consensus on how to treat each other to improve their own situation. How can morality even be objective if it doesn't even apply to beings outside of the target group?

You literally didn't even refute my points and started insulting me, yet you're calling me edgy? Look in the mirror breh.

>>13327181
Sorry I guess I was too right to get a (you). I hope I didnt hurt any meat eater's feelings.

>>13326193
That is what OP was saying much more succinctly. You should study his post and learn from it.

>>13327181
There is no evolutionary pressure that would remove the reception of pain were it to randomly develop, however.

are chinks gonna deforest their entire country now just to make plants suffer

>>13326205
Based
and redpilled

>>13331100
so fish and lizards are ok?

>>13334073
You should ask the vegans mate. Their believes are more akin to religion than anything actually concrete.

>>13326356
Nah plants can have uber quick responses to environmental stimuli, it just isn't as abundantly obvious.

>>13334046
>deforest

>>13331937
Of course, the same is also true of plants. But when damage happens your cells alert something is wrong so they can work to repair that over and above the normal regeneration. Both plants an animals send those signals, it's pure silliness to label one pain and the other not, just because when it happens to a plant you don't see it wince in a familiar way.

>>13326464
>Calories
Who still use that woman magazine mumbo jumbo in fucking 2020?

>>13328876
>Nah, that's bullshit.
it's actually true. pain is universal but only the human brain makes it a huge big deal that make us cry and shit. For the rest of the wild life it's just "ok I should leave that place " "ok now I'm not in pain anymore back to be a non thinking meat machine".

>>13336455
That's not true though. Animals show far more response to pain than that.

If plants feel pain we definitely need to eat them because if we feed animals plants and eat them instead the the amount of green pain is going to multiply by atleast ten.

>>13326079
Kek

So to minimize this chain of pain we need to eat plants as the animals we eat also eat plants. Alot of them. Sounds like vegans won from this article.

>>13337726
Yeah this article is no shock to any vegan anywhere. All the ones I have talked to frame their philosophy as trying to minimize the harm they cause, never have I heard one say they cause no harm at all.

But carnivore trolls will grab any bait they see on the off chance it might cause upset. Because that's all they really care about.

>>13326213
>implying

>>13337227
Don't go bringing your knowledge of conversion rates and trophic levels into this perfectly good excuse to btfo vegans epic style. I'm here to find excuses to murder things, not learn.