3 ms·
>If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. A very reasonable, consistent position.
by Falling3 10y ago
>If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals.
A very reasonable, consistent position.
- virmundi 10y agoThe trouble comes with eating plants. Do they want to be eaten? So far we pushed our desire to live onto animals. Why not push that view onto plants? At least to the core plant (seed bearing plants appear to need, and I guess therefore desire, for their fruit to be eaten to decimate their germs)? The trouble with the lauded projection is we are left with not eating anything. Perhaps after the singularity then?
- Falling3 10y agoSentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Although there is a gray area the closer to the line you get (insects for example), that does not diminish the fact that we can say with high degree of certainly are sentient (cows) and are not sentient (wheat).
- dragonwriter 10y agoThere's considerable evidence that plants are sentient by the usual external functional definitions (the traditional internal "subjective experience" definition is not directly testable), which is why some vegans have adopted structural standards regarding distinct "sense organs" so as to keep sentience restricted to animals.
- Falling3 10y agoWhat would you say are the "usual functional definitions"? The only evidence I'm aware of that gets distorted into an argument for plant sentience is that plants are able to respond to their environment, which is a feature of all living organisms.
- virmundi 10y ago@Falling3 > Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Fine line you got there. Why do you have it? I'd take an actual response, but the question is rhetorical. I just want people to know why they make decisions they do. I also don't want people to harm others that don't agree. For example, you should have no power to prevent me from eating a chicken legally.