[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 32 KB, 420x420, chilipepperpottedplant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3709095 [Reply] [Original]

Okay I never understood the vegan argument that they dont eat meat or anything that came from an animal because theya are living beings and that they "feel" pain or something. But plants are living beings and they have been studies that says that they can feel stress and a plant grwoing with loud music develops deformed. Meaning that even plants have a will to live.

>> No.3709102

Vegans are retarded over sensitive products of our society, they would not last a week in the wild.

>> No.3709120

vegetarians and vegans each chose to draw a line where they felt comfortable.

>> No.3709125

I only eat organic

but I put on a pound of make up with all those nasty sulfates and chemicals

>> No.3709122

OP you are an ignorant retard that cant feel empathy for the pooors animal!!!!

>> No.3709126

>>3709120
I think that is ridiculous why draw some retarded line I personally eat anything that's not toxic.

>> No.3709131

>>3709125
You know organic use other dangerous but natural pesticides right?

>> No.3709142

Well i've got to eat something, might as well be the thing that feels less pain.
I don't pick flowers or damage trees though.

>> No.3709159

>>3709126
Not all vegitarians/vegans avoid eating meat for moral reasons, some of us are just find the idea of eating dead animals disgusting.
I honestly don't care that you kill animals to eat, I just can't do it myself.

>> No.3709456

>>3709159
>Dead animal
>disgusting
What makes dead plants not disgusting?

>> No.3709461

>>3709159
So you dont have a logical reason for not eating meat? At least you are honest about it, most vegans are met spout the most pseudoscientific bullshit to claim why they dont eat meat.

>> No.3709462
File: 72 KB, 935x849, 1303624804632.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Clearly a diet of inorganic, naturally-occurring compounds is the way to go (i.e. granite).

>> No.3709506

personally, i think if you couldn't bring yourself to kill something in order to eat it then you shouldn't be eating it, ethically. but i won't judge you for being a sorry-assed wimp unless you either waste it or the thing suffers needlessly even more for your weakness.
hunt or eat free range, organic, grass fed are all better choices.

>> No.3709515

>Vegan argument

Stopped reading there op, vegans are fucking retarded, at least when they try to defend their beliefs, the average vegan anyway. Don't worry about it.

>> No.3709534
File: 93 KB, 640x474, rage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>But plants are living beings and they have been studies that says that they can feel stress
>beings and they have been studies that says that they can feel stress
>they have been studies
>they

FUCKING RETARD. NOT ONLY DO YOU NOT PROVIDE CITATIONS, NOT ONLY DO YOU DISREGARD THE FACT THAT PLANTS HAVE NO SENSORY AWARENESS OR NEURONS, BUT YOU DISPLAY RETARD GRAMMAR.

SAGE. ANYONE WHO EVEN THINKS THE PHRASE, "THEY HAVE BEEN STUDIES" SHOULD BE STERILIZED.

>> No.3709539

>>3709534
Massively butthurt vegetarian.

>> No.3709556

explain to them that the very act of living involves killing hundreds and thousands of parasites and bacteria that are mercilessly destroyed by their body's immune system every day.

The only way to exist without killing is to kill yourself and exist only as inert bio mass

>> No.3709575

>>3709534
And you ignore the fact that plants can and DO react to stimulus such as venus fly traps and mimosa

Guess they react through spiritualism or voodoo magic eh bullshit guy?

>> No.3709589

>>3709575
and rocks react to you kicking them by rolling away
rocks confirmed for protected species
poster confirmed for moron who thinks plants have emotions

>> No.3709596

>>3709575
>I don't know how motor proteins work

By the same logic, a fucking clock is conscious life.

>> No.3709608

>>3709589
>doesn't know what react means
>thinks animals have emotions
>calls other people morons

>> No.3709620

>>3709608
>>thinks animals have emotions
>implying they don't

full retard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

>> No.3709627

>>3709608
> reaction
> something caused by an action
> thinks rocks spontaneously move around
> confirmed for schizophrenic who thinks he's a wizard

>> No.3709629

>>3709456
humans are naturally repulsed by carnage, the same effect can not be said for wood and mulch.

that being said, omnivore here. Given the money to do so, id draw the line at things that experience suffering. My main qualm is the way animals are treated when raised. It really is appaling to make animals that experience suffering live the way they do on intensive raising.
as for fish and reptiles, fuck em. they dont have brains that suffer.

>> No.3709650

>>3709629
>as for fish and reptiles, fuck em. they dont have brains that suffer.
eh?

>> No.3709668

>>3709650
fish and reptiles don't really possess the mental facilities to process pain any further than reflexes, nor do they have centers of the brain for emotions. fish can not be depressed, for instance, they lack the ability for joy in the first place.

>> No.3709711

>>3709668
How about amphibians and birds?

>> No.3709722

>>3709711
birds actually do have fairly highly developed brains and feel a lot
idk about amphibians htough

>> No.3709724

>>3709668

How come my fish recognizes me and gets excited and when I get near her bowl?

>> No.3709754

>>3709724
conditioned response. usually when you get near the bowl you drop food. dont get me wrong, i like fish. ive had tons of pet fish growing up, but you could treat them as a very complicated biological machine and not much more.

>> No.3709817
File: 57 KB, 239x294, 1274155275408.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

I'm vegan because modern animal farming uses and produces incredible amounts of carbon.

While I can still understand the desire to stop any living thing from having a meaningless, tortured existence, much like the life experienced by the vast majority of farm animals, whether they are raised for meat, dairy, or both, the argument that all animal suffering is bad simply doesn't make much sense, and also seems a lot like some of the arguments used in an abortion debate.

When and how does a human need take precedent over the life of another thing? In an ideal scenario, whenever. We are, after all, animals just like the rest of them, and in a purely ecological context, the simple morality of killing your food is irrelevant. It is when we take the mind of that food and render it useless, irrelevant in itself, that we stop being able to judge ourselves on the terms of our natural environment. I suppose this is, in a way, an admission of sympathy with the aforementioned 'all suffering is bad' argument used by some on my side, and to be fair, the underlying concepts of what is good lie on nearly the same territory for both, the difference is in recognizing the inherent transience of life.

Pain is the construct of the mind, a mind brought into existence conforming to specifications brought upon by its ecological niche. Within the bounds of this natural niche, pain and eventual death are inevitable, as competition forces continuous danger on any being complex enough to interact with it's surroundings. The argument against pain doesn't work on the grounds that pain itself is by no means an alien experience to any life form, within the bounds of its natural environment.

>> No.3709833

>>3709668
>fish and reptiles don't really possess the mental facilities to process pain any further than reflexes

Why are you stating this as if were fact? It's a very archaic belief

>> No.3709888

>>3709833
no, you're right. fish have extremely complicated emotions. why if they could talk to us, they could teach us so much about the emotional decisions they make every day.

fish are eating breeding machines, and the extent of their pain is experienced to avoid being eaten.

if its archaic, then show me a study that shows they have a mind capable of suffering? The more advanced a mind is, in other words the closer to us, the more i feel sympathy for its experience.
The fact that people go fishing without remorse, but don't cast out fish with hooks in them to catch cats by their mouths is evident to that.

Then again, people set out rat poison and glue traps that make a fairly intelligent creature die a very painful death for making the grave error of sharing our warm homes filled with food. So maybe people are simply as sadistic as we let them be, and suffering has nothing to do with it.

>> No.3709925

>>3709754
>implying there's a difference between conditioned response and emotion

>> No.3709943

There is a distinct difference between animals and humans. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.

Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than physical force. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves—a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them—at our expense.

>> No.3709984

>>3709943

It is immoral precisely because we have achieved voluntary means.

You say yourself that they are amoral, should that not be just cause for removing them from any kind of human-created construct? What right do we have to drag them into our way of life?

>> No.3710022

>>3709754

what about octopi and the species of cuttlefish that hunts in packs?

>> No.3710037

plants are not sentient beings. higher animals are.

>> No.3710039

>>3709984

To attribute rights to non-rational, amoral creatures who can neither grasp nor live by them is to turn rights from a tool of human preservation to a tool of human extermination. Consider the issue of animal testing, which is universally opposed by animal rights activists, and the object of much animal rights terrorism. There is no question that animal research is absolutely necessary for the development of life-saving drugs, medical procedures, and biotech treatments. Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing were prohibited.

>> No.3710045

>>3709629
Bullshit.
Humans aren't naturally repulsed by carnage but society's norms dictate that its carnage is "icky" and shit and only reserved for butchers and those type of jobs.
Compare that to the way our ancestors survived by eating the bone marrow of dead animals that stronger predators killed. Notice how retarded "humans are naturally repulsed by carnage" sounds. I for one no longer am repulsed by meat unlike when I was of younger age, shows that its just society's bullshit.

>> No.3710052

>>3709943
Not that i dont agree with you, but there is a hole in your logic. if animals are below our morals and we can use them any way we want without moral consideration, then why not inflict suffering on them if we so will it? If we can use them without sacrificing our welfare for theirs, why not torture them for amusement or treat them inhumanely for convenience sake?

I agree, animals are benieth us. and we have the right to eat them if we wish, it was in large part what made us human to begin with. Empathy, however, makes a large part of being human aswell, and why we treat sociopaths as animals from their lack of empathy: often expressed from thier torture of animals. Why do we approve of a lack of empathy in certain areas?

A Man cant keep a dog in a 1sq meter cage, so why can he a pig? he immoral for one and not the other, and we need a standard seeing as how we allow it for pigs and not dogs. it isn't intelligence based, pigs are as smart or smarter than dogs. it isn't status as pets, because people keep pot bellied pigs as companions as well.

Either we can abuse animals all we want, or we cant at all ( Obviously setting the standard differently for different species ), it is either amoral to lack empathy or it isn't.

In the case of animals with no suffering to empathize with, i don;t find it cruel. ill toast ants with telescope lenses with no remorse, i wouldnt do the same to my cat. Somewhere between cat and ant is that line that it isnt morally ok to do so.

Should they have a bill of rights? Of course that's nonsense. Should we be allowed to essentially torture animals because it makes bacon a bit cheaper?

For the record, i eat bacon, and i remember what this pig had to go through and i appreciate it all the more.

>> No.3710060

>>3710039
Then why not use sedation before experiments, ect... ?
Yeah, because humans are cruel, gready bastards.
It's in the same thing for meat, the people who sell meat don't care if animals feel pain or not, only about productivity, so you're de facto supporting a huge industry of pain just so you can taste your precious, unnecessary meat.
And if there are a handful of rules to limit pain (and only in western civ, barely, muslims/jews can still slit the troat of conscious animals because freedom of religion hurrdurr), it's because there are "faggots" like us, who actually have some sense of morality and are willing to endure disrespect for it despite how much we like meat or how much there is to gain by being an evil asshole who doesn't care about anything because morals-are-relative-hurr-durr.

>> No.3710067

>>3710045
Meat is one thing, carnage is another. Even children are repulsed by roadkill with their guts hanging out. I think we can become conditioned to be neutral to such things over time, and it is natural to be afraid of dead animals from a disease point. Im not an archaeologist so i cant argue the bone marrow aspect, but i know human digestive tract barely handles fresh meat, and can no where near handle rotting carrion. Its natural to be repulsed by it, except in culture where they are raised to think its ok.

Coincidentally i used to work in a butcher shop for a few years. I got used to the blood, but never the smell. Btw you wouldn't believe how many tumors we cut out of roasts and steak.

>> No.3710086

>>3709943
No, there is not. Simply because you cannot understand whale song or dolphin speak or know some of the nuances of ape and chimp behavior.

Anyone have that link where the researchers taught the chimps to use money? And they canceled the experiment because the chimps started prostituting?

>> No.3710095

>>3710086
<the chimps started prostituting

They are like us in so many ways aren't they? Looks like the worlds oldest profession has a longer pedigree than we thought.

>> No.3710148

Moral says what is good for the survival of the people who have the genes for moral and blah blah. If killing an animal doesnt harm us its not against moral. Unless its some twisted moral based on treating everything cute as human.

>> No.3710161

>>3710148
i'm less concerned with killing than i am about rampant disregard to the animals pain.

I eat animals, ill kill one to eat one, but i wont raise one in a box, feed it garbage, then electrocute it till it cant mood, and bleed it out upside down.