User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-16 at 8:26 PM UTC@ Lanny
It doesn't matter either way because I eat plants and animals.
but evidence is evidence. which found that "plants do feel."
plants don't have a central nervous system like humans and animals but scientists have found evidence that plants really can feel when we're touching them.
what degree of feeling does a life form have feel before you see it as feeling? plants should say ouch or be able to get away otherwise you can ignore the scientific evidence? -
2018-09-16 at 9:14 PM UTCAnything that lives can sense things.
Living things possess the goals of growth, reproduction, and perhaps fostering youth. Therefor, no living being wants to be dead before it is dying, besides some humans. (Due to rising suicide rates and existential viewpoint shifts en masse, Malice's theory may hold some weight. Perhaps more on that later.)
In the sense that no living thing wants to be dead, nothing from cacti to roadrunner to bacteria should be killed when morality and/or altruism are accepted and applied by humans.
There is no known natural morality by other animals and plants; only constructed morality by humans.
Greed is what drives all living things; acts of seeming compassion or altruism are actually very complex acts of greed. Other living things do not hold the life of prey as valuable because it does not help theirselves.
It is not necessary for humans to cuff the chains of morality on theirselves, nor is it necessary for them to abstain from eating meat or anything that was living and subsequently killed prior to or during consumption.
However, there are some such people that would try to force some or all peoples to cease eating meat irregardless of their wishes. -
2018-09-16 at 9:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Anything that lives can sense things.
Living things possess the goals of growth, reproduction, and perhaps fostering youth. Therefor, no living being wants to be dead before it is dying, besides some humans. (Due to rising suicide rates and existential viewpoint shifts en masse, Malice's theory may hold some weight. Perhaps more on that later.)
In the sense that no living thing wants to be dead, nothing from cacti to roadrunner to bacteria should be killed when morality and/or altruism are accepted and applied by humans.
There is no known natural morality by other animals and plants; only constructed morality by humans.
Greed is what drives all living things; acts of seeming compassion or altruism are actually very complex acts of greed. Other living things do not hold the life of prey as valuable because it does not help theirselves.
It is not necessary for humans to cuff the chains of morality on theirselves, nor is it necessary for them to abstain from eating meat or anything that was living and subsequently killed prior to or during consumption.
However, there are some such people that would try to force some or all peoples to cease eating meat irregardless of their wishes.
I would have sex with you, immorally.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-16 at 9:20 PM UTC
-
2018-09-16 at 9:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
This is a very contentious claim. Firstly "intelligence" is not a term with a uniform definition. Many you'll find are vacuous and apply so broadly as to include clearly emotionally and experientially inert objects. One of my favorite definitions hinges on having "knowledge" which seems to substitute the problem of assigning a good definition to the word "intelligence" to the much larger project of defining knowledge. Then the evidence for all but the most trivial forms of intelligence in plants is a lot weaker that you've made it out to be.
But most importantly intelligence has never been the rubric by which I've assigned moral considerably to lower animals but not plants, nor do I think it is for anyone ITT except perhaps captain falcon. It's the hedonic faculty of lower animals that appears lacking in plants.
Wrong. If the analogy fails demonstrate how. If not then suck my dick.
It's reasonable to prioritize projects which we can expect to do greater good or to eliminate more suffering on a practical level, but that doesn't change the moral status of an act. If you have to choose between greater and lesser evils then of course it's right to choose the lesser (this is why I don't condemn people in the third world for raising livestock if that's really the only way they can sustain themselves) but this shouldn't be the present situation for anyone in this thread.
It's perfectly reasonable to attempt to remediate issues like human malnutrition and our exploitation of lower animals at the same time. In fact it's quite possible to do both at the same time as it requires fewer natural resources to sustain yourself without meat and it's usually less expensive in developed countries, so you can commit the money you've saved with your plant based diet to feeding those less fortunate that yourself.
You have no dick -
2018-09-16 at 9:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Anything that lives can sense things.
Living things possess the goals of growth, reproduction, and perhaps fostering youth. Therefor, no living being wants to be dead before it is dying, besides some humans. (Due to rising suicide rates and existential viewpoint shifts en masse, Malice's theory may hold some weight. Perhaps more on that later.)
In the sense that no living thing wants to be dead, nothing from cacti to roadrunner to bacteria should be killed when morality and/or altruism are accepted and applied by humans.
There is no known natural morality by other animals and plants; only constructed morality by humans.
Greed is what drives all living things; acts of seeming compassion or altruism are actually very complex acts of greed. Other living things do not hold the life of prey as valuable because it does not help theirselves.
It is not necessary for humans to cuff the chains of morality on theirselves, nor is it necessary for them to abstain from eating meat or anything that was living and subsequently killed prior to or during consumption.
However, there are some such people that would try to force some or all peoples to cease eating meat irregardless of their wishes.
Nah jokes aside this a wonderful post. I keep reading it. I feel like I have to read it at least 100 times to really grasp the essence of it. I just know it's good. I love it.
Don't thank this post diet penis. -
2018-09-16 at 10:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny none who knew anything about knowledge and intelligence will ever confuse the two together.
I haven't confused one for the other, not accused anyone of doing the same. Maybe you want to reread my post.it doesnt ?
It does not.shouldnt be the lesser evil be less immoral than the bigger evil and hence more tolerable ?
Yes, that is kind of the meaning of "lesser" and "greater", I said that the existence of a particular wrong in the world doesn't inherently change the moral status of another wrong, not that all wrongs are equally severe.
Originally posted by playingindirt It doesn't matter either way because I eat plants and animals.
Why even bother brining it up if it doesn't matter?but evidence is evidence. which found that "plants do feel."
Maybe you'd like to present that evidence for use to examine then.plants don't have a central nervous system like humans and animals but scientists have found evidence that plants really can feel when we're touching them.
"Feel" is an imprecise word. If you mean they can respond to the stimulus of touch then yes, they can "feel" in that sense quite obviously. But you'll notice I didn't use the unqualified term "feel", and specifically pointed to "hedonic capacity" as a sufficient criterion for moral capacity. You'd have to demonstrate that plants "feel" in the same sense that we "feel" when we experience pain or emotional states to show an issue with my position.
Originally posted by DietPiano Living things possess the goals of growth, reproduction, and perhaps fostering youth.
Again, "goals" is a fuzzy word. We might say a drive belt has the "goal" of communicating force between gears but few, if anyone, believes that drive belts have a moral status beyond "inert".In the sense that no living thing wants to be dead, nothing from cacti to roadrunner to bacteria should be killed when morality and/or altruism are accepted and applied by humans.
It's perfectly to take a stance that does not mandate the satisfaction of all preferences, or the preferences of all things e.g. many deontologists believe we have a number moral duties but our duties don't extend to non-human animals or that satisfaction of the preference to continue living is not something we have a duty to respect in all cases.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker You have no dick
My dick is 12" long and destroyed your mom's pussy last night. I'm coming for your sissy little vag tonight bitch boy.
-
2018-09-16 at 11:39 PM UTC
-
2018-09-17 at 1:03 AM UTC@ Lanny
It doesn't matter to me if they eat plants or animals. criticizing people for eating meat when they eat plants is why I did the research.
I posted my findings which are based on the scientific evidence. plants "do feel" and plant intelligence from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. It wasn't some hippy site.
feeling is feeling. If they meant it's only a respond they wouldn't have put the emphasis on "plants really do feel."
bottom line is people just want to ignore the scientific findings so they can justify plant eating and criticize meat eaters. lolz -
2018-09-17 at 1:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA256
Again, "goals" is a fuzzy word. We might say a drive belt has the "goal" of communicating force between gears but few, if anyone, believes that drive belts have a moral status beyond "inert".
Goals is a fuzzy word.
Script is better. Just as a drive belt is scripted to run until it breaks or is interupted (which are also scripted events), people and other living things are probably scripted according to their genes.
I am also beginning to think that free will may not exist, and that our thoughts and feelings are simply played out according to our genetic/physical composition.
We analyze everything, and everything we do is an analysis. How you react to something is an analysis based on your life experiences, your composition, and the moment in spacetime you are in. Given those exact parameters, I believe it is likely that a person will react to a given thing the exact same way every time if such a thing could be recreated. This line of thinking leads me to believe that it is unlikely that we have free will.
I may start calling this theory the "Only analysis" theory.
In line with the only analysis line of thinking, the experiences of feelings allows for much greater analysis potential. Combinations of thinking & feeling exponentially increase the possibilities for analysis. I am unsure if we evolved this way on purpose or not.
I am getting off track.
Originally posted by Lanny —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA256
It's perfectly to take a stance that does not mandate the satisfaction of all preferences, or the preferences of all things e.g. many deontologists believe we have a number moral duties but our duties don't extend to non-human animals or that satisfaction of the preference to continue living is not something we have a duty to respect in all cases.
Why?
What is special about humans that gives them the ability to throw disregard to other species at whimsy? Why treat any other species with any respect if it admissable to brutalize some other species?
I also don't understand the concept of "partial altruism", in that, one should always be altruistic at least until they have filled their altruism quota, or unless it is too inconvienient (how much?) to be altruistic, or if one has an appropriate excuse (what?) to not be altruistic. Examples include, but are not limited to: one is catching a plane in 20 minutes, or one doesn't feel like it because it is Monday.
It could be argued that Jesus could have been more altruistic; the bible does not say that he sprinted to all who he aided, therefor he may have wasted precious time that could have been spent assisting others.
By this logic, altruism is only relevant when one wants to be altruistic, irregardless of the need on the other side. When one has either met their altruism quota, or is too inconvenienced to be altrustic, or some other such excuse, then the problem which requires altruism to be resolved ceases to exist to that person for at least the period of time that said person is choosing to sepnd time on themselves instead of being altruistic. This line of thinking feeds into my greed theory. I am very sincerely curious of your thoughts on this. -
2018-09-17 at 1:16 AM UTCWhy hurts so bad.
Yuck!
If I keep living in Why? I won't be able to be Me? -
2018-09-17 at 1:31 AM UTCLOLZ
-
2018-09-17 at 2:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I haven't confused one for the other, not accused anyone of doing the same. Maybe you want to reread my post.
no ? then i;l concede i have no idea what your saying when you said this:
"Firstly "intelligence" is not a term with a uniform definition. Many you'll find are vacuous and apply so broadly as to include clearly emotionally and experientially inert objects. One of my favorite definitions hinges on having "knowledge" which seems to substitute the problem of assigning a good definition to the word "intelligence" to the much larger project of defining knowledge."It does not.
i thought the moral status of something that is 'less immoral' isnt the same as something that is 'very immoral'. the magnitude of immorality doesnt change moral status ?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-17 at 2:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Greed is what drives all living things; acts of seeming compassion or altruism are actually very complex acts of greed. Other living things do not hold the life of prey as valuable because it does not help theirselves.
i disagree. there are no obese animals in the wild. and they dont hoard more food than they can eat in a season. -
2018-09-17 at 2:11 AM UTCWhat does it have to do with You?
How does it affect u, and how can U make a positive effect.
Given so simple, trivial exchange...who Cares? -
2018-09-17 at 2:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i disagree. there are no obese animals in the wild. and they dont hoard more food than they can eat in a season.
Greed as in "I do what I perceive will lead to the best outcome for me", which is not necessarily repeated self-indulgence.
Hoarding too much food would be an unnecessary expenditure of time and resources, and it is gauged by the animal that eating too much would be probably not be the best outcome for the animal. Feelings of fullness help regulate this.
Some animals (and people) may have an overeating gene, and if it is undesirable, they will probably die out along with that gene. People, on the other hand, are able to continue to pass on that crackhead self-indulgence gene without dying first. -
2018-09-17 at 4:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Neither is "moral agent".
It's true that what it takes to be a moral agent is not a subject of broad consensus but I don't think it's an ill defined term. Like I might think animals are not moral agents while Zanick things they are but it seems pretty uncontroversial that "moral agents" are those things capable of moral action and to which we can assign moral responsibilities.
-
2018-09-17 at 4:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Greed as in "I do what I perceive will lead to the best outcome for me", which is not necessarily repeated self-indulgence.
doesnt sounds like the definition of greed, or at least the way i understand the word.
greed to me, is the desire and craving for unnecessary excesses.
maybe the word your looking for is 'selfish' ? -
2018-09-17 at 4:31 AM UTCMeat is murder... but why am I too stupid and lazy to be vegan? I want to be. The carnivorous diet doesn't suit my disposition or my beliefs. Why am I so stupid? Why can't I take care of myself?
-
2018-09-17 at 4:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by playingindirt I posted my findings which are based on the scientific evidence. plants "do feel" and plant intelligence from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. It wasn't some hippy site.
What you posted seems to be a 56 second visualization video aimed at a general audience on national geographic.
Even if we accept what's shown is representative of a general phenomenon in the plant kingdom (note the "mutant plants" thing in the title) all it demonstrates is that some plants respond to stimulus. This is wholly unsurprising, no one has argued that plants don't respond to stimulus. It does not demonstrate that plants have anything that can reasonably be called intelligence (which again, is not many people's criteria for moral considerably) or that they have a hedonic capacity.bottom line is people just want to ignore the scientific findings so they can justify plant eating and criticize meat eaters. lolz
That's quite an uncharitable reading when I haven't ignored your so-called scientific findings at all, I've just found them unconvincing and offered critique of why they don't seem to demonstrate what you seem to be saying they do.
