Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too

Login/Join to Participate
Page: ...
Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
  Posted: I would just like to mention out of general irritation that some veggie friends give me. They always ask how can I have a clean conscience because I eat meat? Uusally giving me a long lasting lecture also about how much healthier it is. I have no rpoblem with the healthy part. But I would like to inform you that plants have feelings too. If you have come across kirlian photography (aura photography) you can see strands coming from them. Well we know plants are alive of course but what about other tests that have been undergone? Plants react to the atmosphere around them eg music, smells, people talking.

Albeit they are a different form of life I just wish some veggies would stop taking the moral highground because I like meat.

All I can say is I appreciate every morsel of food that passes through my lips and I wonder where it came from and how that piece of food lived.

Views people?

Heres some linkage to show I aint a complete raving loony

linky link

Oh and if there are any fruitarians about who can give me a kick up the bum then go ahead.... I respect that you try not to harm anything to get your grub.


Delete Topic

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
  Posted:it's my body, keep your hands off :P
i choose meat
there are other aspects of body control that hurt others especially children so keep your hands and your beliefs off my body


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
  Posted: Written by: faithinfire



being in Oregon, a while ago, my aunt took me through some virgin forest. passing through it, there was this incredible tingly feeling...cell phones don't work in those forests...i would say that it may not be a familiar consciousness, but that there is one there (imo)
even being vegitarian causes land destruction and who is anyone to say how much is acceptable and what is not...we just need to be more responsible with our farming techniques



Growing vegatables does involve land destruction.

So does meat production- as I pointed out above, meat production involves growing approximately 10x the amount of vegetation.

(That's just the land destruction involved in growing the animals food- housing etc requires more).

In terms of land destruction, eating meat causes considerably more than eating vegatation.

Anyone genuinely concerned about land destruction would do well to consider reducing their meat intake.

And this applies across the board- once you realise that meat=10x the vegatation use that simply eating vegetation direct does- then any harm caused by being vegetarian is 1/10 that caused by consuming meat.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
  Posted:which is why we all should consider how we can promote more responsible farming techniques

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Pele
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA

Total posts: 6193
  Posted:Actually OWD, that is *not* what I was saying, or getting at. I have watched forrests be leveled for vegetable crops to go in as well.

My point is that unless you don't eat at all, then you have no right to point and critise.

In the end, I fully, 100%-won't be able to change my mind believe, it isn't the earth we are trying to save, it is our exsistence on it. The earth was here before us, it'll be here after. Yes we need to minimize damage but how far are you willing to go to do that? Unless you live off the grid, hunting and foraging and fully self-contained and natural, then you add to the problem (the term "you" meaning the "universal you" and in no way is meant towards any singular person.)
*EVERYONE* in some way or another adds, takes, uses and abuses and so no one is exempt, immune, above or beyond anyone else.
I've read quite a fair bit of contradictory information, including statistics like what you posted, and very different numbers. There is no hard and fast because every piece of literature about it has an agenda (and should, and is expected to).

Therefore, it still comes down to personal choice in my opinion becaue no one should be criticised for their food choice, unless they enlist in a weight loss program that uses that as part of thier method. wink

Which takes us all WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off the original topic....and the fact that I will still continue to eat plants. I can kill a deer and eat it without losing sleep, I can do the same to a head of lettuce.


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
  Posted:The original topic, as stated in Little_Miss_Nebula's first post, was not simply about plants having feelings.

It was actually about plants having feelings AND the fact ,that they have feelings, invalidating vegetarian arguments that not eating meat is more kind.

What I've tried to put in a clear and consise form above, is that this is incorrect.

Pele, you mention "I've read quite a fair bit of contradictory information, including statistics like what you posted, and very different numbers".

Please do pass on some links and I will definitly check them out- my argument above very much depends on the fact that meat production (in western intensive farming) involves around 10x plant deaths than if the diet consisted on plants only.

As such, if that statistic is in doubt, then I would appreciate links to any info on it and, if the stat is incorrect, I can either modify or withdraw my argument.

I'll also clarify that I'm under no illusions that the actual planet Earth is in jepeardy here- even an all-out nuclear exchange isn't going to damage the Earth.

As you say, what is at issue is our continued existence (civilised- what ever happens it's unlikely thaty humanity will be completely wiped out).

Now, if the info above concerning the meat industries effect on the environment is correct, then meat use (at current levels) is no more a matter of personal choice than excessive car use, excessive flying, excessive industrial pollution etc.

Like all those, it can be argued that there are grounds for addressing any excess that results in damage for the next generations of our children.

Concerning 'adding to the problem' and the fact that

 Written by:


*EVERYONE* in some way or another adds, takes, uses and abuses and so no one is exempt, immune, above or beyond anyone else.




Yes, vegetarians do cause harm- it's just that they generally cause considerably less than those who eat a lot of meat.

This is because, as meat production involves around 10X (?subject to any contrary info in that stat) plant destruction, then, whatever harm plant destruction involves, meat eaters bring about 10x that amount.

NO human can live their life without causing some harm so there's no point setting the stanard at zero- what we can aspire to is to lower/minimise that harm.

In no way am I suggesting that everyone becomes vegetarian, simply that a lot more people eat a lot less meat, whether that's to cut down animal suffering or to cut down on the considerable environemental harm (and therefore harm to humanity) that excessive meat use causes.

Mainly, what I'm doing in this thread, is trying to address some of the invalid/dubious arguments that try to critisise vegetarianism or 'big-up' meat-eating.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
  Posted:i have decided since i don't fly, i can eat meat wink

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
  Posted:Bada bing...touche...and other expressions of a point well made.

Delete

Pele
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA

Total posts: 6193
  Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


The original topic, as stated in Little_Miss_Nebula's first post, was not simply about plants having feelings.

It was actually about plants having feelings AND the fact ,that they have feelings, invalidating vegetarian arguments that not eating meat is more kind.

What I've tried to put in a clear and consise form above, is that this is incorrect.

Pele, you mention "I've read quite a fair bit of contradictory information, including statistics like what you posted, and very different numbers".

Please do pass on some links and I will definitly check them out- my argument above very much depends on the fact that meat production (in western intensive farming) involves around 10x plant deaths than if the diet consisted on plants only.

As such, if that statistic is in doubt, then I would appreciate links to any info on it and, if the stat is incorrect, I can either modify or withdraw my argument.

I'll also clarify that I'm under no illusions that the actual planet Earth is in jepeardy here- even an all-out nuclear exchange isn't going to damage the Earth.

As you say, what is at issue is our continued existence (civilised- what ever happens it's unlikely thaty humanity will be completely wiped out).

Now, if the info above concerning the meat industries effect on the environment is correct, then meat use (at current levels) is no more a matter of personal choice than excessive car use, excessive flying, excessive industrial pollution etc.

Like all those, it can be argued that there are grounds for addressing any excess that results in damage for the next generations of our children.

Concerning 'adding to the problem' and the fact that

 Written by:


*EVERYONE* in some way or another adds, takes, uses and abuses and so no one is exempt, immune, above or beyond anyone else.




Yes, vegetarians do cause harm- it's just that they generally cause considerably less than those who eat a lot of meat.

This is because, as meat production involves around 10X (?subject to any contrary info in that stat) plant destruction, then, whatever harm plant destruction involves, meat eaters bring about 10x that amount.

NO human can live their life without causing some harm so there's no point setting the stanard at zero- what we can aspire to is to lower/minimise that harm.

In no way am I suggesting that everyone becomes vegetarian, simply that a lot more people eat a lot less meat, whether that's to cut down animal suffering or to cut down on the considerable environemental harm (and therefore harm to humanity) that excessive meat use causes.

Mainly, what I'm doing in this thread, is trying to address some of the invalid/dubious arguments that try to critisise vegetarianism or 'big-up' meat-eating.



One of the articles I read was on the One Degree website, which I tripped onto through the weather channel website.

I've also read about it in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, which we have subscriptions to at home. Not everything is read on the computer.

I find that the voracity with which you are finding any angle and belittling other points (trying to get people to eat less meat but then sitting on a computer, using paper, etc...) to be exactly representational about what is being said about vegetarians actually. You *are* in fact, arguing in the same manner that other vegetarians I have seen are, and justifying it with listing to a couple reports which side your arguement.

I find your continual repetition of your goal to be representational also.

When people are saying that it's about respecting the decisions that one another has made and to not argue about it because no one is right or wrong...you are saying "Meat eaters are wrong based on this potential 18%."

Do you use paper? Toilet paper? Paper Towels? Tissues? According to an article on One Degree about 3 months ago, that industry causes more damage than most.

You do what you want and respect others choices to do the same, that is what I am saying.

That being said, I have said all I wanted to say based on the topic and not see that this is a debate I choose to not get involved in so I respectfully bow out.


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
  Posted:belittle?



I think that's unfair. I'm disagreeing with some POVs and, where I see clear flaws in them, pointing out those flaws.



That's to be expected in discussion/debate on what, to many, is a serious topic.



To belittle means 'to make feel small'- nothing in what I have said has been done to make people feel small.



If, in anything I've said, there is a hint of insult, agression or clear attempt to make anyone feel small, point it out and I will apologise and modify future posting accordingly.



*******EDIT********

Having re-read your post again I can see that you're actually talking about 'belittling other points" i.e. paper and computers etc.



If so, what I wrote above is rubbish- my mistake, apologies.

*********END EDIT******



--------



Yes, I use paper, computers etc- as I previously mentioned, I also eat animal produce occasionally (small amounts of fish); so, yes, as I have already pointed out numerous times, I do cause harm.



As does everybody, unavoidably.



The point I've been making is that, given two individuals- all other things being equal (eg they spend same time on computer, use same amount of paper, same amount of flying etc), the one who eats no, or very little, animal produce, does less harm tham the one who eats a lot of it.



Anyone who wants to eat meat- go ahead- it's fine by me.



We live in a culture where meat use has, till recently, been seen as normal, good, harmless etc- it's no wonder that many people have got into the habit of regular animal produce consumption.



Eat meat- it's totally OK by me.



But, if in addition to eating meat, you post views claiming that the western meat industry does not cause incredible amounts of suffering to animals: then I'm going to disagree and explain why I disagree.



If someone posts an argument based on 'plants have feelings therefore it's ok.....' then I'm going to point out that, by eating meat, you cause much more plant suffering, therefore the argument fails.



Lastly, if someone goes on to claim that their meat use is pure personal choice and affects no-one but themselves, don't be surprised if I point out that recent reports and studies indicate that meat production causes more environmental damge than cars or flying.



I do use paper and I do use computers- they do cause harm. But I don't feel the need to post dodgy arguments attempting to deny the fact that they cause harm.



If I ever do use an argument to justify my beliefs and someone shows that arguement is flawed, I would never get defensive and accuse them of trying to belittle me- I'd thank them and modify my opinion accordingly.



If anyone sees a flaw in any of the facts, links or reasoning I've used, point them out. Please point them out, then I can stop using them.

EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1171150913)


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
  Posted:oh my goodness.



I think we'd have a lot less meat eating if the meat eaters had to kill their own meat and butcher it to get their meat. so many people love to defend their right to eat meat, but then when it comes to ending the life of an animal right in front of them wimp out - and usually feel ill during the butchering process. I wonder how many would be defending their right to eat factory meat if they had an awareness of the conditions their food is being grown in?



life eats life etc...conjures imagery of some jungle situation and this is the often quoted "but its natural" argument - theres nothing natural about your battery hens, or your pig farms with sows in crates so they cant even walk around, etc, etc, etc...if meat eaters want to use the 'its natural' argument - you'd better find a natural source for your meat = big $$$. And if everyone who was currently eating factory meat shifted to 'natural' meat but didnt reduce the amount there wouldnt be enough surface area to produce it!



Then theres the fact that the grain fed intensively farmed meat that constitutes most of the affordable meat available is very carbon / fossil fuels intensive...but oh no! we need 30c hamburger patties and bangers for brekkie.



I think its not just personal preference - factory meat is wrong on so many levels, and yet constitutes the vast majority of meat you can buy.



If this discussion has led you to think a little about the ethics of food production, it might be a good idea for you to read a nice easy book on the subject like "The Ethics of What We Eat" by Jim Mason and Peter Singer.



So many people these days seem to think that having an opinion on a topic is the same as knowing about it - sad really.



I appreciated your proof re harm minimisation Dave - its a pity we havent seen a single cohesive argument from the Steaks4life crew wink


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
  Posted:Maybe the reason the steaks4life crew haven't put forth a cohesive argument is because, like the flying half way around the world for a vacation thread there really isn't one. From an environmental perspective meat is bad, from an animal cruelty perspective meat is bad, from a human health perspective, meat is unnesecary.

But like flying, eating meat is a personal choice and something we do because we want to. Could your average meat eater stomach slaughtering their own meat ? I don't know. I could..but 15 years ago I couldn't have ( I'm not so squeamish anymore ) Could I eat something I raised and actually knew, like buying a calf and raising it into a cow...I doubt it. Could I raise and butcher my own rabbits ? Most likely. Could I walk out to my backyard and blow away a deer...easily. Could I hook fish and beat them to death before eviscerating them ? I do it regularly.

Do I need to do any of these things..no..because I have the luxury of paying professional animal assassins to do my dirty work for me and all I need do is open my wallet... I call it a benefit of modern society and often wonder whether my being raised in this modern society has contributed ( or created ) to my now diminished squeamishness when it comes to the machinations of the slaughter house. Would I feel the same had I grown up in a different environment, like 200 years ago when going to the supermarket for a ready to cook chicken wasn't much of an option ?

Is this "I'm a product of my environment" argument valid ? I think so.

Of course we know what would happen if everyone shifted to "natural" meat...no more animals..ie no more deer in my backyard, or anywhere for that matter.

But then I do reap the benefits from animal testing too, I can easily tear open a packet of cold medication and consume it without a thought to the the animals that no doubt suffered to ensure that this stuff is going to kill me. Should I need to do my own animal testing too.


Delete

87wt2gxq7


87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham

Total posts: 1502
  Posted:Okay, here's a slightly tangential question. It might warrant its own thread but as it's pretty frivolous I don't see that it's necessary. Happy to have it moved to another thread if it is deemed more appropriate.

Say some Clever Scientists invented truly cruelty-free meat. That is to say meat grown in a lab from a fillet steak stem cell, that was genetically engineered to have no nerve endings in it so there was no way it could feel pain or anything. In order to grow it would need be supplied with nutrients. But the Clever Scientists invented a process of recycling nutrients from compost and CO_2 emissions. It is tasty, lean and nutritious.

Steaks4life crew: would you switch to this new ubermeat or would you still prefer moo-cow meat?

Veggies4victory crew: would you start eating this ubermeat or would you still have problems with it?


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
  Posted:Steak4lifer chiming in to say I'd give the tissue culture a try, and stick with it were it comparable to "real" meat.

Locally I can buy this big name brand of chicken ( well my wife buys it ) that comes in big boxes 5 kilos, and I assume it's cheap. Thing is it's the weirdest chicken I've ever come across. Not only will this stuff not brown, even on the bbq, but it's completely lacking in flavour and the texture is closer to tofu than chicken. I often joke that this stuff is grown in a lab, and now refuse to eat it in favour of better, more expensive bird.


Delete

Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
  Posted:I daresay I will buy a crossbow when I have the money, go for a lovely walk in the hills.... spot my prey bounding/flapping around happily where it wants to be and end it's life swiftly.... not prolonging it.

Abatoires are bad places because it's mass murder and whoever that cow/pig gives life to they don't know, if you've been near/in one you'll probably notice the very bad atmosphere around it. Better being able to look your prey in the eye complimenting your prey with skill/wit taken.

This I deem helluva lot more respectable.... and it's free range.

But that's just me smile


Delete

Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
  Posted:oh and I ackwoledge that when I hug a tree I may think about a cousin I munched on earlier and thank them for still letting me hug them.

Yes I am nuts smile


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
  Posted::uumm: now fly4fun get's into the same corner as the steaks4life? rolleyes You're terrifying me...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
  Posted:Tom..only in relation to global warming.

The IPCC says we should all be afraid...very afraid. Well ok, it's our grandchildren that need to be afraid and we need to be afraid for them.

Maybe

All those scientists could be wrong wink


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
  Posted:"all there is to fear is fear itself"... (Amytiville Proverb)

We get all scared, distracted and scattered, whilst the dough is getting taken by the few... rolleyes


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
  Posted: Written by: Pyrolific




I appreciated your proof re harm minimisation Dave - its a pity we havent seen a single cohesive argument from the Steaks4life crew wink



Cheers- it was getting a bit lonely in this thread smile

I don't think we ever see many cohesive arguments from keen meat eaters, cos there aren't any smile

People eat meat either cos they like it or through established habit- not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it doesn't constitute reason/argument for eating meat.

Whereas many of those who don't eat meat, make that choice based on some form of argument/reason eg cos they don't want to contribute to harming animals or they think that meat eating has adverse effects on the environment.

And that's OK- it's just the nature of the issue that there can't be many arguments why people should eat meat (other than for that minority who have medical conditions that make it desirable).

It's just unfortunate when they see that as being such a bad thing that they then bring forward obviously false arguments, like the one this thread is based on (plants have rights, therefore lets eat animals instead......).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
  Posted:i have a small obsession in bacon and steak wrapped with bacon
and i think plants have some form of feeling or consciousness
no excuses


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
  Posted:Even though it might come across the wrong end:

I just can't fully agree with you, OWD. IMHO the agricultural industry is doing mayor damage to the environment, the fruits and veggies are not as healthy as you may try to put it and indeed, just because you can neither hear nor sense it: plants have a life and emotions.

So how do you explain that plants should have lesser rights?

May I direct you to this woman who claims that it's possible for the human body to survive exclusively on sunlight.

You guess that's an option for you? It should be, because it's here and she proves it. So you should now cease all veggie-genocide and just stare up to the sun... errrrrm now I got it: how often does the sun shine in the UK?? wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
  Posted: Written by: FireTom



Even though it might come across the wrong end:



I just can't fully agree with you, OWD. IMHO the agricultural industry is doing mayor damage to the environment....................





I addressed this one earlier-



 Written by: onewheeldave







Fortunately, over the past few days, I've realised there is no need to engage with that particular issue, when, instead, it can be shown to be irrelevant (to the issue of the rights/wrongs of meat eating and vegetarianism).



Let me be somewhat bold and say that I'm not interested in proffering an opinion here- what I am aiming to do is put forward an irrefutable, drop-dead proof, that the existence of plant feelings in no way justifies the meat-industry.



Of course, i may make a mistake, in which case feel free to point it out.



1. For the case of argument, I grant the opposition the possibility that plants are conscious.



2. I'll use one premise/assumption- the fact that, when it comes to doing harm or inflicting suffering, that it is morally preferable, when faced with two options, all other things being equal, to choose the option that results in less harm/suffering.



In life, it is impossible to not inflict harm occasionally- even those who commit to not killing any life, will inevitable occasionally swallow a fly, or sit on something that results in an insect being crushed.



The important thing, morally speaking, is to minimise the harm. Given a choice between selling cakes for a living and selling landmines, it is preferable to sell cakes.



-----------



Getting to the point, take two choices-



A. eating a lot of animal produce/meat



B. eating very little animal produce/meat and instead eating more vegetation



If plants have feelings and can suffer pain/loss, than option B does indeed involve harm.



Option A also involves harm (to the animals).



Clearly though, option A also involves considerably more harm to plants.



This is because animals eat vegetation to live.



They walk, run, copulate, breed- a considerable amount of food is necessary to fuel all this.



As a result, the amount of energy/food value obtained from an animal by eating it, is considerably less than the amount of energy/food value of the crops that have gone into it throughout its life.



This portion is generally said to be around 10 to 1.



This means that, to sustain a human with option B (vegetarian or close to vegetarian) involves an amount of plant suffering which we will call X.



Option A, however (eating, lots of meat) involves an amount of plant suffering equal to X multiplied by 10.



Option B, therefore, as it involves considerably less suffering to both plant and animal, is clearly the morally preferable option.



Thus, even if we accept that plants are capable of suffering, vegetarianism is still the morally superior option.



From this I put forward the suggestion that the 'plants have feelings' justification of the meat-industry, is irrelevant to the issue and nothing more than a smoke-screen.





Basically, whatever harm plant agriculture causes, is simply multiplied by ten if the alternative of eating animals is attempted.



Of the two options of eating meat and eating plants, the second is by far the least destructive, simply because meat production requires so much vegetation for the animal feed.







 Written by: FireTom







So how do you explain that plants should have lesser rights?









I don't.



Anyone who really believes that plants have rights should immediately cease to eat meat- as explained above, getting your energy and nutrition from meat involves far greater plant carnage than simply subsisting on plants alone.













 Written by: FireTom



May I direct you to this woman who claims that it's possible for the human body to survive exclusively on sunlight.







She's talking bollox- no one can live without eating (as I'm sure you know smile ).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Groovy_Dream
SILVER Member since May 2005

Groovy_Dream

addict
Location: Australia

Total posts: 449
  Posted: Written by: Pyrolific



oh my goodness.



I think we'd have a lot less meat eating if the meat eaters had to kill their own meat and butcher it to get their meat. so many people love to defend their right to eat meat, but then when it comes to ending the life of an animal right in front of them wimp out - and usually feel ill during the butchering process. I wonder how many would be defending their right to eat factory meat if they had an awareness of the conditions their food is being grown in?







There are two, seperate reasons why people don't like killing animals. Firstly, people might not want to end the life of another living being. They would be ethically disturbed by the idea. Secondly, killing an animal can be quite gross, with all the blood and guts. I have heard vegetarians say that meat eaters are too weak to kill animals themselves, but they assume that this is because meat eaters don't like to see animals die in front of them as that would make them feel morally responsible. I would say that it's most often because of the second reason - if killing an animal wasn't so full of blood and guts, people wouldn't have as much of a problem with doing it themselves.


Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
  Posted: Written by:

OWD said: Let me be somewhat bold and say that I'm not interested in proffering an opinion here- what I am aiming to do is put forward an irrefutable, drop-dead proof, that the existence of plant feelings in no way justifies the meat-industry.





I dont follow OWD, if the existence of plant feelings in no way justifies the meat-industry, then what are you complaining about? You seem to base opposition to eating meat on the existence of animal feelings.



Perhaps OWD, you could read the The Secret Life of Plans.



If people were really concerned about animal then they wouldnt eat any animal products. Then they would suffer from Vitamin B12 deficiency, proving once again that animal products are part of a healthy human diet.







spank


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free..., United Kingd...

Total posts: 8738
  Posted: Written by: Pyrolific


oh my goodness.

I think we'd have a lot less meat eating if the meat eaters had to kill their own meat and butcher it to get their meat. so many people love to defend their right to eat meat, but then when it comes to ending the life of an animal right in front of them wimp out - and usually feel ill during the butchering process.



I've butchered a pig and a couple of chickens... pigs are hard. we raised some iron age boar on a farm in the forest, big red bristley ones, butchered then spit roast them takes a HELL of a long time to spit roast a whole damn pig (about 14-20 hours)


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
  Posted:OWD: meaning that if these two parts would greatly change

- feeding the animals and
- killing them softly

eating meat would be okay? I mean the gasses could even be turned into energy.

Ever thought about the fact that your resentment to light-food is the same as vegetarianism appears to meatlovers?

And finally: you would have no problem in denying rights to plants and have them farmed any which way.... but animals are a different story, because you think so?

*wanders off, headshaken*


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
  Posted:As well stablished meat eater when you say their are little arguements I daresay the protein count is important.... tofu tastes of tasteless goo unless of course you attack it with all manner of flavorings. Hey I aint dissin veggiecuisine.... heck my xmas dinner was a nut roast and I enjoyed it too. Also us humans are omnivores.... why do you think we have those pointy canine thingies?

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
  Posted: Written by: Stone


 Written by: ] OWD said: Let me be somewhat bold and say that I'm not interested in proffering an opinion here- what I am aiming to do is put forward an irrefutable, drop-dead proof, that the existence of plant feelings in no way justifies the meat-industry.[/quote



I dont follow OWD, if the existence of plant feelings in no way justifies the meat-industry, then what are you complaining about? You seem to base opposition to eating meat on the existence of animal feelings.

Perhaps OWD, you could read the The Secret Life of Plans.

If people were really concerned about animal then they wouldnt eat any animal products. Then they would suffer from Vitamin B12 deficiency, proving once again that animal products are part of a healthy human diet.




I think you've misinterprated. OWD's point was that plants having feelings would not make unneccesary harm to animal justifiable.

The fact that having some animal component to our diet may be conductive to our health does not justify unneccesary harm either.

Rather, it would mean that people should try an minimise their consumpsion of animal meat, restrict themselves to animal species less likely to experience pain in a meaningful way, and encourage more humane farming principals
 Written by: Firetom

And finally: you would have no problem in denying rights to plants and have them farmed any which way.... but animals are a different story, because you think so?


Animal are different to plants. smile


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
  Posted:Animals are different to plants of course. I imagine we can argue perceptions of life all day.... through to next millenium.

I believe the race to posess a plant is now on smile

But plants are still alive, as are fungi, as are we.... all in their own special way. They react to the environement around them, they reproduce. How do you know that they aren't debating what we're up to?

If you've read any of Terry Pratchett then you may recall when Rincewind has just bounced back onto the disc and wandering around somewhere on the rim he realises the trees are talking. He asks the tree 'what does it feel like to bea tree?', the tree replies 'I've been a tree all my life, I don't know how to beanything else, why? What does it feel like to be human?'

or something like that.

There are so many things we do know but have proof of... how do you know? I like to keep an open mind.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
  Posted: Written by: FireTom


Ever thought about the fact that your resentment to light-food is the same as vegetarianism appears to meatlovers?





There's no such thing as 'light-food'- humans cannot obtain nutrition or calorific energy from light or prajna and subsist on it so that food and water is unnecessary.



 Written by: FireTom




And finally: you would have no problem in denying rights to plants and have them farmed any which way.... but animals are a different story, because you think so?

*wanders off, headshaken*



As I previously said, my argument does not deny rights to plants, on the contrary-

 Written by: OWD


1. For the case of argument, I grant the opposition the possibility that plants are conscious.

2. I'll use one premise/assumption- the fact that, when it comes to doing harm or inflicting suffering, that it is morally preferable, when faced with two options, all other things being equal, to choose the option that results in less harm/suffering.




...it includes it as the first assumption of the argument.

and then goes on to show that eating meat violates far more plant rights than eating plants does...

The fact is that the animals we eat (cows, pigs, hens etc) consume a lot of plants to live on- by getting energy from animal meat we violate around 10x the plants rights than if we just eat plants.

(unless of course, animals can also live on 'light-food' smile )


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Page: ...

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [vegetarianism plant* feeling*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Your nickname, and you, your feelings and your friends! [120 replies]
2. Forums > A story of feelings true. [34 replies]
3. Forums > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too [267 replies]
4. Forums > feeling down and expressing feelings [5 replies]
5. Forums > Nice Feelings [24 replies]

     Show more..