4 ms·

I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is th

I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. I believe suffering is caused by, roughly, difference between one's preferences and reality. But animals do not have preferences (this is controversial. will you agree that if that controversy goes my way, then being a vegan is a mistake?) You haven't even said what you think suffering is. If you just assume it's physical pain ... well that is false. We know it's false because sports players and fetishists often enjoy limited amounts of physical pain, and do not suffer from it.

cjbprime 16y ago
> I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. No, you're decades out of date. It is established fact, on all sides of the animal rights argument, that animals suffer and feel pain. I'd be shocked if you could find a single credible source arguing otherwise at this point. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. If you kick a dog, which you shouldn't, it'll exhibit all the same physiological responses that we do to being kicked; it will be in obvious pain and distress, and measurably so; it might cry, it'll hide, it'll be scared of you in the future. What else is there? > But animals do not have preferences No, that's patently ridiculous. Many adult animals, and most especially other primates, hold long-term preferences and have tested at the cognitive level of young human children (toddlers). Again, why would you possibly expect anything else? > You haven't even said what you think suffering is. There are books upon books written about animal suffering, and I was giving bullet points, so not exhaustively defining my terms is hardly a fair criticism. You could read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering
- huhtenberg 16y ago
  Wait till they discover Plant and Fungus Suffering. That should make things plenty more interesting :)
  - Egregore 16y ago
    Plants and fungus don't have nervous system, so there are no scientifically demonstrable ways how they will use ability to suffer. Animals can move and suffering helps them find better conditions, for example if there is to hot an animal will seek another place, if something causes suffering animals will try to avoid it, plants on the other hand can't move and can't avoid suffering so plants don't need to feel suffering.
    - Evgeny 16y ago
      I think if plants can't move, that puts them into even worse circumstances compared to animals. At least animals can try to get away from the danger, plants do not even have means for that. I feel more sorry for the plants now. Way to discriminate the whole kingdom of living creatures just because they did not happen to evolve the nervous system humans can understand. How can we say they do not suffer in ways we can not grasp at our current development level? Oh, and also - some plants can move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement
    - elblanco 16y ago
      >Plants and fungus don't have nervous system Who says plants don't have a different, but equivalent way of sensing their environment? Plants respond to stressors in the same way that animals do, they fail to thrive -- they wilt, or don't produce fruit, they grow more slowly, etc. Overtime, plants evolve defensive mechanisms like bark, thorns or poisons. Everything an animal does (or at least with strong analogies to animals), except plants aren't mobile. Plants also respond to positive stimuli in the same way animals do, they thrive. Plants turn to face the sun, they grow faster, reproduce faster, produce more flowers and fruit, they stand taller, their leaves are fuller, their stems are firmer, all have strong analogies in the animal kingdom. Anybody who's ever taken care of a house plant can attest to the fact that plants that are well cared for, doted over, with careful attention to making sure all of the plants needs are met, thrive better (seem happier) than those that aren't.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  I have read the research and it's wrong. If you think otherwise you have not given an argument, you just appealed to authority.
  - cjbprime 16y ago
    > I have read the research and it's wrong. If you think otherwise you have not given an argument, you just appealed to authority. You haven't explained why it's wrong. Surely the person who thinks that the almost-unanimous scientific consensus of the last few decades is "wrong" should be the person who is, you know, posting links to their crazy theories or whatever? I can't post them for you.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      If you're serious about this, pick a paper you want to know what's wrong with, and email the cite to curi@curi.us, and I will reply by email with flaws in that particular paper (or a concession statement if I find none). I do not want to pick the paper myself b/c then you can just say (quite correctly), "OK so one paper was flawed but that doesn't mean the others are." So it's important to start with you picking a paper that, if it's wrong, you'll have to rethink your views, and if it's right I'll have to rethink mine, and then we discuss that one. I expect you to choose a paper you have read before, not just google one up now. (You did read some papers before posting claims about what the scientific consensus is, I hope.)

cjbprime 16y ago

> I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. No, you're decades out of date. It is established fact, on all sides of the animal rights argument, that animals suffer and feel pain. I'd be shocked if you could find a single credible source arguing otherwise at this point. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. If you kick a dog, which you shouldn't, it'll exhibit all the same physiological responses that we do to being kicked; it will be in obvious pain and distress, and measurably so; it might cry, it'll hide, it'll be scared of you in the future. What else is there? > But animals do not have preferences No, that's patently ridiculous. Many adult animals, and most especially other primates, hold long-term preferences and have tested at the cognitive level of young human children (toddlers). Again, why would you possibly expect anything else? > You haven't even said what you think suffering is. There are books upon books written about animal suffering, and I was giving bullet points, so not exhaustively defining my terms is hardly a fair criticism. You could read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering

huhtenberg 16y ago
Wait till they discover Plant and Fungus Suffering. That should make things plenty more interesting :)
- Egregore 16y ago
  Plants and fungus don't have nervous system, so there are no scientifically demonstrable ways how they will use ability to suffer. Animals can move and suffering helps them find better conditions, for example if there is to hot an animal will seek another place, if something causes suffering animals will try to avoid it, plants on the other hand can't move and can't avoid suffering so plants don't need to feel suffering.
  - Evgeny 16y ago
    I think if plants can't move, that puts them into even worse circumstances compared to animals. At least animals can try to get away from the danger, plants do not even have means for that. I feel more sorry for the plants now. Way to discriminate the whole kingdom of living creatures just because they did not happen to evolve the nervous system humans can understand. How can we say they do not suffer in ways we can not grasp at our current development level? Oh, and also - some plants can move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement
  - elblanco 16y ago
    >Plants and fungus don't have nervous system Who says plants don't have a different, but equivalent way of sensing their environment? Plants respond to stressors in the same way that animals do, they fail to thrive -- they wilt, or don't produce fruit, they grow more slowly, etc. Overtime, plants evolve defensive mechanisms like bark, thorns or poisons. Everything an animal does (or at least with strong analogies to animals), except plants aren't mobile. Plants also respond to positive stimuli in the same way animals do, they thrive. Plants turn to face the sun, they grow faster, reproduce faster, produce more flowers and fruit, they stand taller, their leaves are fuller, their stems are firmer, all have strong analogies in the animal kingdom. Anybody who's ever taken care of a house plant can attest to the fact that plants that are well cared for, doted over, with careful attention to making sure all of the plants needs are met, thrive better (seem happier) than those that aren't.
xenophanes 16y ago
I have read the research and it's wrong. If you think otherwise you have not given an argument, you just appealed to authority.
- cjbprime 16y ago
  > I have read the research and it's wrong. If you think otherwise you have not given an argument, you just appealed to authority. You haven't explained why it's wrong. Surely the person who thinks that the almost-unanimous scientific consensus of the last few decades is "wrong" should be the person who is, you know, posting links to their crazy theories or whatever? I can't post them for you.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    If you're serious about this, pick a paper you want to know what's wrong with, and email the cite to curi@curi.us, and I will reply by email with flaws in that particular paper (or a concession statement if I find none). I do not want to pick the paper myself b/c then you can just say (quite correctly), "OK so one paper was flawed but that doesn't mean the others are." So it's important to start with you picking a paper that, if it's wrong, you'll have to rethink your views, and if it's right I'll have to rethink mine, and then we discuss that one. I expect you to choose a paper you have read before, not just google one up now. (You did read some papers before posting claims about what the scientific consensus is, I hope.)