5 ms·

> Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects Two things: plants aren't sentient and animals also eat plants - many, many times more plants than vegan

by noondip 11y ago

> Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects Two things: plants aren't sentient and animals also eat plants - many, many times more plants than vegans do. So if you truly regard plant and animal life to be the same, it would behoove you to immediately stop eating animals! It's very obvious how this argument falls flat on its face when brought to the light of critical thinking. > how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant underpaid labor? This is just conjecture, but I'll try and answer anyway. You can be vegan and care about how workers are treated. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Personally, I grow most of my food myself, but obviously this isn't practical for most people. Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like? > Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free? Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be superior to animals, and justifies their destruction. It's not a game of semantics - in fact, it's not a game at all. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change. You can be coy all you want, but you are actively contributing to the problem by consuming animal products.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Two things: plants aren't sentient I don't think there is any coherent and useful definition of sentience for which no plants are sentient but all animals are sentient.
- noondip 11y ago
  There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Any attempts to qualify both as the same when it comes to their destruction is just a coy way to rationalize unethical behavior. Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Sure, but whether the things which make up that distinction have particular ethical significance is a different question. And I have yet to see any definition of sentience for which both of the following are true: (1) It does, in fact, apply to all animals and no plants, and (2) Most people would agree that it has ethical significance. In fact, I haven't seen any definition of sentience for which even (1) alone is true. > Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly. That seems to a apply a utilitarian standard of ethics, not the categorical one which is usually in arguing that veganism is an ethical compulsion (under the categorical ethics usually applied to argue for veganism, recognizing plants as sentient would make eating either inexcusable, even if it were a survival necessity.) Once you accept that its a utilitarian matter, determining that something is ethically demanded requires agreeing to a particular ethical calculus -- a method of aggregating utilities and disutilities experienced by different participants. And there's an infinite number of possible functions that can be used, and they can support any possible conclusion.
    - unprepare 11y ago
      This is exactly what i was getting at, but vastly more well worded
    - noondip 11y ago
      > under the categorical ethics usually applied to argue for veganism, recognizing plants as sentient would make eating either inexcusable Veganism is the ethical position that animals should not be exploited for food, clothing and other purposes. If you want to start a Compassion for Carrots organization, be my guest, but please don't form conjecture on others' behalf. You've also not yet provided evidence for plants' sentience, so you haven't actually given reason for considering the abuse of animals to be ethical or acceptable.
      - unprepare 11y ago
unprepare 11y ago
>plants aren't sentient Is a venus fly trap sentient? Is a cricket sentient? Is a starfish sentient? Is a worm sentient? How about trees that communicate with other trees nearby?[1][2] >and animals also eat plants Plants also eat animals[3] animals also eat other animals, so i dont understand how this is an argument. >This is just conjecture 61% of all farmworkers have incomes below pverty level, average life expectancy subtanstially lower than rest of population[4] cites migrants earning 7500$ per year, 52% having no legal status in US[5] >Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like? you could certainly make that argument, but i dont think its likely to mirror agricultural migrant labor >Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be superior to animals, and justifies their destruction. Thats quite a label to apply to someone you've never met and whose never said anything like that. You seem to believe you are superior to plants though... [1]https://karban.wordpress.com/research/ https://karban.wordpress.com/research/ [2]http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden-internet http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden... [3]http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/volunteer/young_naturalists/insectivores/insectivores.pdf http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/volunteer/young_na... [4]http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/migrants.html http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/migrants.html [5]http://articles.extension.org/pages/9960/migrant-farm-workers:-our-nations-invisible-population http://articles.extension.org/pages/9960/migrant-farm-worker...
- noondip 11y ago
  You're making straw man arguments. Humans don't breed, enslave and kill billions of starfish, crickets and worms. Do you see what you're doing? Rather than acknowledge we're harming many animals which are no doubt sentient, you're appealing to fringes to bolster an illogical argument. I'm not surprised - many carnists take refuge in the plant-killing argument as a last resort. It's fascinating what lows the human mind will reach to justify cruelty. And so what if animals kill other animals? Do you really think that's a reason to act the same? Why pick this behavior, and not the one in which animals commit infanticide or sniff each other's rear ends? > You seem to believe you are superior to plants though The only one I'm superior to is myself when I still paid for the abuse of animals.

by noondip 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Two things: plants aren't sentient I don't think there is any coherent and useful definition of sentience for which no plants are sentient but all animals are sentient.

noondip 11y ago
There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Any attempts to qualify both as the same when it comes to their destruction is just a coy way to rationalize unethical behavior. Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Sure, but whether the things which make up that distinction have particular ethical significance is a different question. And I have yet to see any definition of sentience for which both of the following are true: (1) It does, in fact, apply to all animals and no plants, and (2) Most people would agree that it has ethical significance. In fact, I haven't seen any definition of sentience for which even (1) alone is true. > Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly. That seems to a apply a utilitarian standard of ethics, not the categorical one which is usually in arguing that veganism is an ethical compulsion (under the categorical ethics usually applied to argue for veganism, recognizing plants as sentient would make eating either inexcusable, even if it were a survival necessity.) Once you accept that its a utilitarian matter, determining that something is ethically demanded requires agreeing to a particular ethical calculus -- a method of aggregating utilities and disutilities experienced by different participants. And there's an infinite number of possible functions that can be used, and they can support any possible conclusion.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    This is exactly what i was getting at, but vastly more well worded
  - noondip 11y ago
    > under the categorical ethics usually applied to argue for veganism, recognizing plants as sentient would make eating either inexcusable Veganism is the ethical position that animals should not be exploited for food, clothing and other purposes. If you want to start a Compassion for Carrots organization, be my guest, but please don't form conjecture on others' behalf. You've also not yet provided evidence for plants' sentience, so you haven't actually given reason for considering the abuse of animals to be ethical or acceptable.
    - unprepare 11y ago

unprepare 11y ago

>plants aren't sentient Is a venus fly trap sentient? Is a cricket sentient? Is a starfish sentient? Is a worm sentient? How about trees that communicate with other trees nearby?[1][2] >and animals also eat plants Plants also eat animals[3] animals also eat other animals, so i dont understand how this is an argument. >This is just conjecture 61% of all farmworkers have incomes below pverty level, average life expectancy subtanstially lower than rest of population[4] cites migrants earning 7500$ per year, 52% having no legal status in US[5] >Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like? you could certainly make that argument, but i dont think its likely to mirror agricultural migrant labor >Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be superior to animals, and justifies their destruction. Thats quite a label to apply to someone you've never met and whose never said anything like that. You seem to believe you are superior to plants though... [1]https://karban.wordpress.com/research/ https://karban.wordpress.com/research/ [2]http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden-internet http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden... [3]http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/volunteer/young_naturalists/insectivores/insectivores.pdf http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/volunteer/young_na... [4]http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/migrants.html http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/migrants.html [5]http://articles.extension.org/pages/9960/migrant-farm-workers:-our-nations-invisible-population http://articles.extension.org/pages/9960/migrant-farm-worker...

noondip 11y ago
You're making straw man arguments. Humans don't breed, enslave and kill billions of starfish, crickets and worms. Do you see what you're doing? Rather than acknowledge we're harming many animals which are no doubt sentient, you're appealing to fringes to bolster an illogical argument. I'm not surprised - many carnists take refuge in the plant-killing argument as a last resort. It's fascinating what lows the human mind will reach to justify cruelty. And so what if animals kill other animals? Do you really think that's a reason to act the same? Why pick this behavior, and not the one in which animals commit infanticide or sniff each other's rear ends? > You seem to believe you are superior to plants though The only one I'm superior to is myself when I still paid for the abuse of animals.