And didn't we JUST have this debate, and didn't we basically decide that the people who were arguing against vegetarians didn't really have a good argument other than "hurrrrr meat is tasty" ???

Very good.

I don't think you'll find too many vegans who will criticize people who NEED to eat dairy products to survive because they can't afford anything else. And, in fact, vegan authors will often explicitly state that they are not arguing against even eating meat if you have to do it to survive.

But if you can afford to not eat meat, if you can afford to not eat dairy, then you are morally responsible for doing it.

"Ought" also implies "can." If I cannot do something, I am not morally obligated to do it. Any smart vegan will understand that, and I'm not trying to prove that all vegans are smart.

Some people argue that you are morally obligated to give to charity. They, in fact, might criticize people who are "misers" and hoard their money. Poor people cannot give charity. That does not mean poor people are wrong to not give to charity, but it also does not mean very rich people are RIGHT for hoarding all of their money.

Again, vegans don't just abstain from meat, they abstain from everything animal related. It may be morally defensible, but in practical terms, abstaining from all animal products is not biologically sound. Bottom line is that most individuals around the globe need to eat something animal-derived to survive. A philosophy that goes against that is silly I feel.

Edit because I hate making too many posts:



Ok, I can see that argument, but there are ways (not mass implemented of course) that one can use animal products without harming aforementioned animal. Abstaining completely, ok, it's their choice, but I disagree that you can't morally use what an animal creates (not like you're saying that, I think, but still).

Eh, I think there are many people who are bashing the viewpoint because it just seems so alien to them. It's inconvenient, it goes against human tradition, etc, etc, for really little personal gain. Those that do gain are animals, and it's sorta "out of sight, out of mind" with them. How much animals suffer, what they are feeling, stuff like that is hard to know in the first place, and to be blunt, care about when they are making your life easier.

Here's something I've always wondered: how do computer-using vegans justify their blatant hypocrisy?

I'd just like to point out that vegans are only able to survive on their diet by taking vitamin suppliments, most likely with a daily multivitamin tablet. Case in point: Vitamin B12. A human being could not, in an entirely natural setting, live on just fruits and nuts. Regardless of todays technological advances, to say we don't need to eat meat is a pretty darn stupid thing to say. So, yes, the fact that we did eat meat kind of does morally justify it.

Yes, and in order to survive with ZERO animal products requires elaborate and expensive means. Imported fruits and vegetables, artificial dietary supplements.

I'm responding to your second reply at the same time: Eating meat was never the exclusive domain of the nobility. The fact that you tried to make this implication belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the sources you cited. Meat was still available to the peasantry but they ate much less of it. Meat is an important part of your diet, although all North Americans eat many times more than they should.


I made my argument quite clear, but I will restate it until you choose to understand it.

Agriculture contributes to the continuing survival of a species and is therefore in that species' reproductive interest. As long as humans require cattle, the cow will survive.

Ending agriculture is not in a cow's best interest because it is, as you said, "too late." It's too late for bow taurus as an entire species. They no longer have a biological niche and they are not adapted for living in the wild.

I will comment more on your "sacrifice" comment in a moment.


I live in Alberta and I've seen more cows out to pasture than a PETA member has seen Frappucinos.


I've never killed a cow before. I've never actually seen a cow slaughtered outside of PETA propaganda videos. How am I more violent? For all I know all of the meat I buy is grown in a petri dish.

But you're right. Banning the slaughter of animals will end violence, just like prohibition ended disorderly conduct and domestic abuse.


The fact that Taco Bell served spinach containing E. coli completely invalidates this statement. Not that you mentioned which 'health advocates' would rejoice that meat is no longer being served or what their credentials are.

I've never spoken to any dietician or doctor who recommended a complete cessatation of meat consumption, although pretty much all of them recommend you eat less.


Wow, my arguments get even better when they're rephrased and turned against me like I didn't just say them! Thank you for reminding everybody what I said.

The only person arguing about solipism is you.


A lot of words that mean nothing and don't actually respond to my argument.

This is not a semantics debate. We are not arguing about the meanings of words and we are certainly not going to be inventing new ones.


Plants do have interests which are precisely the same as human interests and animal interests. It is in their interest to not be infected by parasitic organisms, and they have developed biochemical defenses against that. It is in the interest not to be trampled on. It is in their interest not to be eaten by larger creatures. It is in their interest to reproduce.

Nobody here has questioned the fact that animals have some level of consciousness. The thing is, it doesn't matter. I'm not sure if you just don't want to understand what I'm saying or if you are deliberately trying to avoid the issue, but the fact is that animals and plants both respond to threats to their wellbeing. The only difference is that you can see an animal's response.

This is going to be in bold and capital letters so you no longer have an excuse for dodging my point: "PAIN" IS A SIGNAL YOUR BODY GENERATES A BIOCHEMICAL SIGNAL. WHEN A PLANT IS HARMED IT GENERATES A BIOCHEMICAL SIGNAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT YOU NEED A MICROSCOPE TO SEE HOW THE PLANT REACTS. READ. MY. POSTS.

The fact that you're willing to - as you said - kill an entire species in order to prevent its suffering at the hands of farmers is... well... chilling. Have you ever read The Mysterious Stranger? I suggest you do.

Yes it would. They aren't guiding the market, they simply are not participating in it. That's their choice, of course.


One, you don't need to "bring the farms down" to change the way they operate.

Two, if it's not their 'burden' to effect change, why do they keep whining about it?


I am obviously talking about the desire to end factory/other farming. Which isn't going to happen for the reasons I already stated but you will not refute because you don't know how.


There are alternatives to factory-farmed meat and I have stated such in this thread. Just because you don't care enough to make the effort to find one doesn't mean the option doesn't exist.


Nice strawman.


They are not mutually exclusive and I have never said that it was. In fact I have expressed a wish that they were, indeed, silent.

I actually forgot Sine was a Vegan. So I withdraw my statement and humbly submit that only the visible, representative Vegans are attention whores.

I have already stated my point. I suggest you re-read my post instead of simply responding with the first statement that crosses your mind.


you forgot this at the bottom of your post

...and the people who argue for vegetarians don't really have an argument other than "hurrrrr animals are cute ^_^" ???


This debate is actually going rather well by our standards. Contribute or get out.

What is actually being debated in this thread? Whether or not veganism is morally defensible/not entirely stupid or if factory farming or whatever should be banned?

Whether or not the average Vegan is an attention whore. Try to keep up.

Wait, so you're going to insult me too now?

Only if you're a Vegan and you're insulted by my accusation that most Vegans only want attention, yes.

I meant the part where you told me to "Try to keep up", implying that I was just a fool for not reading the thread, without considering that I may have been trying to point out that everyone seemed to be arguing about different things.

Oh. I was being sarcastic since that's clearly not what we're arguing about but I sure wish we were.

Oh. Ok.

Jon'C: I find it humorous that you of all people are concerned about Straw Man Fallacies. Have you bothered to re-read your own posts?

What Jedi Legend did was a strawman. What I do is an ad hominem. Get it right.

I think I'm beginning to like you.

It could be argued that it's not a fallacy because he isn't using the insult to prove his point. He only insults in addition to proving his point.

I didn't mean meat was a monetary luxury. I'm saying that obstaining from all kinds of animal product is a gigantic luxury, and will cost at least 200% or 300% more. That's something only white nations can do.

And I think Jon`C brings up a good point. None of us have a problem with a Vegan lifestyle. We have more of a problem with people trying to play moral superior in light of a guilt complex.

Yawn. Reading comprehension is fun. I don't think anyone ever said anything like that, and there have been plenty of good arguments made. I'm "getting out" because there is no way we can have a civilized debate here.

So taa.

Jon`C has been perfectly reasonable in this debate. I can't really complain, considering that I'm border-line trolling anyway by keeping up a debate on an issue that I personally don't believe in, knowing full well that other participants are likely to become heated by the discussion. Just wanted to make that clear.

And Jon, don't you mean "strawperson" fallacy?

Yeah, I saw this. I don't really care that you don't care. I'm doing this to prove a point that Veganism has its arguments. Oh, and I'm also just having fun. This is more of a game for me than anything, considering that my actual beliefs (which I have yet to disclose) are that animals lack interests and meat eating is morally justified.

I choose to not understand your argument on the need for agriculture and meat-eating to sustain cattle populations because I don't know anything about evolutionary biology and I won't win that debate.



I was just trying to genuinely answer the question: how do vegans respond to this? with as much as I know from taking a class on this very subject. It's true that the Kantian argument against animal cruelty doesn't really apply to meat eating in the same way that it applies to beating your dog with a stick.





Yes, it's hard to improve on your arguments, but I did the best I could.

Actually you hit the nail on the head when you said that we recognize the pain of animals because that's how they react. I didn't want to use that argument "against" you, I wanted to explain why your criticism of it wasn't valid.



Yes, because I'm the only mind that exists. Every other person on this thread is a figment of my imagination and serves to provide me with some entertainment as I wait to go back to school where I have access to alcohol and other fun.




It's not about semantics. It's about the difference between something being in the interest of a being and a being having an interest in something. Duh!




Do you actually believe this or are you trying to make a reductio ad absurdum argument?



Indeed, it is in their interest. It's also in my interest to not get drunk (probably bad for the liver), but I have an interest in getting drunk. Smoking is bad for people, it's in their interest to not smoke. Many people have an interest in smoking. See the difference yet? I suppose that's JUST like plant interests.




I actually think it's kind of really important! The consequence of your argument is that you justify farming human meat as much as animal meat! If level of consciousness isn't an important mechanism for weighing interests, ,then I don't really know why we shouldn't do medical experiments on prisoners and orphaned children. I'm not making up words when I say we can injure a dog in a different sense than we can injure a plant. I mean, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say you are making an equivocation fallacy here. Some animals emotionally respond to pain. Plants biologically respond to pain. We're talking about two different kinds of responses here. And that's NOT semantic.





Actually, I don't really care to read your posts. But I had trouble ignoring this one because it's in all caps. So, are you saying that plants can experience their biochemical signal psychologically? Honestly, if I had the consciousness of a plant, I wouldn't care if I was tortured and eaten. However, I have the consciousness of a human being and I actually care about my experential well-being. Dude, plants don't "feel." Even if they have "pain," they don't feel pain. Exploit my lack of biological knowledge all you want. You have a massive burden of proof if you want to actually prove that plants feel pain.





Same reason silly pro-life people complain about abortion clinics. They think it's wrong. That doesn't mean that they don't have lives that limit the effectiveness of their activism.

This so-called "debate" is reminiscent of the Creationist vs. Evolution debate. The anti-Vegan debate here seems to be as misguided and as misinformed as the Creationists who attempt to argue against Evolution. You can't argue against something if you don't even understand what it is that you're arguing against. There are maybe 2-3 people in this thread that seem to actually know anything about Veganism, and the rest are simply spouting what they've 'heard' or what they 'think' instead of what is actually true. Every single time one of you have made ignorant statements, you've been countered, and instead of simply admitting that you have very little knowledge of what you're talking about, you simply move the goal post. We've already explained to you that it's common practice for Vegans to breast feed. We've already explained to you that many Vegans actually do have various philosophies that are logically sound and contrary to what has been said here, there are many vegetarian and Vegan advocacy groups (as well as meat-eaters that are against animal cruelty) that are striving to do what they think is right, in the manner in which they deem necessary (disagreeing with a methodology is one thing, but pretending as if your method is the only logical one is arrogant and illogical). If your only goal is to spout opinions and sling dirt, then at least don't pretend as if this is an actual debate, because it's not. Similar to how there's not actually a Creationist vs. Evolution debate (as Richard Dawkins says, to debate with Creationists is to give the appearance that there actually is a debate). Maybe I should have taken that advice myself, but I was actually hoping for a debate that doesn't end in personal attacks, logical fallacies, and total and utter bull****. I've been participating on these forums under various handles since 1999 and it's irritating to see this place turn over to bigotry.

Keep in mind while Dawkins considers religious behavior to be delusional, most meat eating folks consider vegeterians delusional.

Here's a comparison for you:

Jedi Legend is playing devil's advocate (and so am I): He is actively refuting my points and producing a valid counter-argument to what I am saying, even though he isn't a Vegan or a vegetarian.

You are a Vegan or a vegetarian. Instead of actively refuting my points you are posting insane gibberish with no purpose other than to remind us that you are, once again, a Vegan or a vegetarian. You are an attention whore.

Reality: You are not a precious snowflake for not eating meat. You are not a pretty butterfly. You are not special or unique and your reasoning is not unquestionable. Arguing the merits of what you believe is not persecuting you in any real way and is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is not logically fallacious to argue against your personal philosophy simply because it is one you have adopted. What I say about your beliefs does not affect you in any tangible way and if you were a sane person you would either join our discourse or leave. You have Histrionic Personality Disorder.

I would like to see the statistics that prove that most meat eaters consider vegetarians to be delusional. While I do personally know a few meat eaters that despise vegetarians and their philosophies (e.g., my father), most people that I meat are more curious than anything after they get over the initial hurdle of realizing that I'm not out to take away their meat.


As I've stated numerous times before, I'm not a Vegan. I'm a vegetarian. I love my milk, cheese, and eggs. I don't subscribe to the Vegan philosophy, but I do believe it to be logical, depending on ones perspective.


I'm the last person on this forum that could be called an attention whore. I spend most of my nights alone and most of my evenings in the forest, avoiding people. I could care less about attention. Your opinion of me is both illogical and purposely offensive without reason. Virtually nothing that you have stated in this thread is based upon factual information. However, despite my irritation towards your ignorance on the subject of Veganism, I refuse to insult you in return. While I'm not a "Christian", I will "turn the other cheek" because I'm interested in facts and truth, not logical fallacies (e.g., Appeal to Ridicule, Personal Attack, etc.).

The overwhelming majority of Vegans subscribe to the belief because they do not want animals to feel pain. Or, specifically, because they do not wish to deny a conscious life form potential future enjoyable experiences. (Yes, contrary to the illusions your histrionic personality disorder and persecution complex summon into your mind, I do understand the Vegan perspective)

This belief is not born of logic because compassion and self-sacrifice are not logical. Choosing the happiness of an animal over your own wellbeing or the wellbeing of your species as a collective is illogical. The Vegan philosophy is one born completely from emotion.

Uh huh, right, which is why every post you make in these threads consists entirely of "NO YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE IGNORANT ABOUT VEGETARIANISM AND VEGANS BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH US! I, AS A VEGAN OR VEGETARIAN, UNDERSTAND WHILE YOU DON'T. I AM A VEGETARIAN YOU SEE AND THEREFORE I CAN UNDERSTAND THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T. I'M NOT IGNORANT, LIKE YOU, BECAUSE I AM A VEGETARIAN. IN FACT THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT ISN'T WORTH ARGUING AT ALL BECAUSE I AM A VEGETARIAN AND I DON'T NEED TO ARGUE IT BECAUSE I AM RIGHT. I WAS READY TO POST A LONG DISSERTATION ABOUT HOW I'M RIGHT BUT I QUIT WRITING IT BECAUSE I'M A VEGETARIAN AND POSTING MY ENLIGHTENED DIATRIBE WOULD BE REDUNDANT BECAUSE I AM A VEGETARIAN. PAY ATTENTION TO ME, I DESERVE ATTENTION BECAUSE I AM A VEGETARIAN. YOU ARE ALL WRONG BUT I WON'T ARGUE IT BECAUSE IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT YOU'RE WRONG, BECAUSE YOU AREN'T VEGETARIANS AND ONLY VEGETARIANS LIKE ME CAN BE RIGHT"

blah blah blah. Yeah, you sure are trying to enlighten us with well-worded arguments instead of meaningless diatribes about how ignorant we are and you certainly aren't trying to repeatedly draw attention to the fact that you don't eat meat.

By the way, that wasn't a strawman because it wasn't a misrepresentation.

Not to mention the fact that the human-canine symbiosis is a much healthier relationship than that of humans and virtually any other species. We've been joined to the domesticated dog for millions of years. I actually feel worse watching a dog get mistreated than watching a human being beaten and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. It's most likely genetic and not learned behavior.





Let me try to put it in another way.


Let's say you have a job and there's this one co-worker you really hate. Well, I guess you don't hate him, but you really don't care about him in the least. He's alright - fairly hard-working, you know. He does his stuff on time.

So one day, out of the blue, I murder this guy in cold blood. You either hate or are completely apathetic about him, so you aren't emotionally hurt by his death. I didn't stab you so you don't feel any physical pain.

You show up for work and... well, there's one less guy. You have to work harder because he's gone. Have I injured you?


I'll put it in another way, too, for good measure. Let's say we travel to a different planet some day, and we encounter a kind of sentient crystal life form. It has no pain receptors. If you shatter it, it instantly dies. It's basically a smart rock.

Would the wholesale shattering of this creature be morally defensible? According to Vegans it would be, since according to them a creature's worth is based on how similar they are to us.

That's my point: the same arguments that Vegans can use to justify killing plants but not animals can also be applied to basically everything else. Plants aren't like us, so it's okay to kill and eat them. Animals aren't like us, so it's okay to kill and eat them. Other people aren't like me, so it's okay to kill and eat them.

I don't think it's right to kill other creatures for food but I'm not going to split hairs about it. In my perspective the Vegan reasoning is fundamentally flawed for this reason.


You're still off the mark. My point is that non-participation in a market does not encourage reform within that market, it merely reduces its scope.

Again: If PETA wanted to change the way factory farms operated, they would convince people to buy meat from better sources - like family farms. But they don't want improved conditions, they want no conditions at all. It's unreasonable and unrealistic and they (and Vegans as a whole) are harming their own cause.

You can't be serious.


I would like to see your sources for this information. However, statistics are irrelevant in this case because I would at least agree that there are many vegetarians that would fall in to that category. Unfortunately, you're stating the most obvious of vegetarian philosophies.


I believe that your posts throughout this thread are evidence that you only understand the basic principles of Veganism. I'm not claiming that you're intellectually incapable, just that you haven't done the research. Again, your insults only weaken your argument.


Can you prove this? I believe that many moral and compassionate philosophies are logical, such as The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do you like pain? Do you love (are you attached to) others? Why would you be apathetic about the pain of others? I believe that Veganism is more about compassion than self-sacrifice (this isn't a Christian movement). Even many of our ancient philosophers were vegetarians and against animal cruelty. There are actual people out there that believe that morality and compassion are products of Evolution ("It's most likely genetic and not learned behavior.").


Your statement is illogical. To be a Vegan or vegetarian isn't to sacrifice your well-being.


I would argue that it's quite possible that it's born both of logic and emotion. The world isn't always black and white.


This isn't the first vegetarian debate that I've been involved in on these forums, as I'm sure you're aware. I have done my share of contributing. Unfortunately, your irritation and hatred has blinded you from the fact that I have indeed made an attempt to debate this topic. You're also conveniently overlooking the fact that I'm stating that I'm a vegetarian for 2 reasons.

• So that people will know where I'm coming from. I don't see you complaining about the other posters stating that they're meat-eaters. Hypocrisy?
• So that people will understand that I'm not a Vegan. It would be disingenuous for me to say that I'm not a Vegan but to withhold what I actually am.

Besides, even if you were correct, what difference does it make? I'm still making valid statements you're still pretending that I'm not.

Once again, you misrepresent Vegans with your generalizations. Many Vegans see the killing of plants to be a necessary evil. We don't all need to consume animals for our survival.


Again, your acting as if your method is the only method. That it's unrealistic is your opinion. The vegetarian movement is HUGE right now. The animals rights movement is HUGE right now. I can go to virtually any grocery store and most restaurants in this country and buy vegetarian food for a low cost. City after city strengthen their animal rights policies and much of this comes about, to an extent, because of organizations such as PETA. They're spreading awareness of vegetarianism and making the needed information easily accessible. Despite what you may think of their organization, they're making a difference, maybe just not the kind of difference that you're looking for.

You haven't made any valid points in any thread you've ever posted in. You just make vague references to knowing more than everyone else. Just mentioning that we haven't done research doesn't make you right. "Sure, most Vegans are guilty and try to make everyone else feel guilty, but there's more than that... you haven't researched!"

Don't let your irritation with me for destroying most, if not all of your arguments, cloud your judgement. I don't know what your problem is with me, but you've taken stabs at me in various other threads as well. I don't know why I continue to be nice to you when you've proven time and time again that you enjoy disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement. People disagree, man. Get over it.


I never claimed that I know more than everyone else. You assume that because I've stated that someone doesn't completely understand a topic, that I think I'm somehow intellectually superior to them. This is not the case. For instance, I can see that Jon'C is an intelligent individual on various subjects just by reading his posts in this thread alone, he simply doesn't fully grasp the various concepts involved when it comes to Veganism. I believe that I've already stated something similar. I was a C and D student in high school and went to community college. I'm well aware that there are people here that are much more intelligent than myself.


I never said that it did. I never claimed to be right. It's obvious at this point that there's no real debate and that we're simply spouting opinions and differences in philosophy.

You're right, I can't be.


The most obvious philosophy is often the one held by the majority of people. Since statistics don't matter, I won't bother trying to find any.


Actually I understand the subject quite well and I believe a lot of the same things they do, although I express that belief in different ways. Sophistry keeps the mind sharp.

Not to mention the fact that I simply dislike the majority of the Vegans and vegetarians I have interacted with and am therefore not particularly inclined to offer them the benefit of the doubt.


The Golden Rule and human/canine empathy are logical because they are - as both of us have already put it - evolutionarily beneficial. Empathy, itself, is actually generated by a special neural pathways designed to 'emulate' what a person is thinking, feeling or doing within our own brain. It's actually an amazingly fascinating area of research.

I digress. This is a bit different than stretching empathy to cover all animals. The Golden Rule is logical because it is in every sense the basis of our civilization. If we do a favor for a person, they are in a position to do a favor for us.

But animals? The favor they do for us is allowing us to eat them. Canines are basically the sole exception in the animal kingdom, because they are literally our partners/symbiotes. Or they used to be. In any case, our bodies are hard-wired to release endorphins when we play with dogs.


This is immensely debatable and I know for a fact that nobody on this forum has the medical background to explore the subject in detail. I believe we can all agree that in order to enjoy a Vegan diet you require artificially-created dietary supplements and/or expensive imported produce. So, yes, a Vegan diet is harmful except under very specific conditions.


I would still argue that it's not born of logic.


This is the first post I've seen in this thread where you've actually tried to make a point that wasn't some variation of "YOU ARE ALL IGNORANT."

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the people that call vegans attention whores are the ones making a big deal out of their lifestyle choices?

I think they just like to prove other people wrong. Making their opponents question their beliefs is just a bonus.

Also, i'm eating steak tonight.

Allow me to begin, since we've had communication difficulties earlier in this thread, by figuring out where this debate stands.

We can agree for now that plants do not have experiences, at least not in the psychological sense. They are not a subject of experience, although they may be an object of experience.

The debate is now over whether or not pain should dictate the morality of an action.

Ok, starting with your first example (these are very interesting examples by the way. Sophistry is, indeed, amazing). I will probably get to the core of the issue in discussing your second example though.



Murder is going to be an immoral action. Maybe since I don't like this person that you killed, I won't personally be upset about it. Maybe I won't even see it as immoral. But my lack of recognition does not change the fact that, based on simple utilitarian ethics, the action is wrong. (Deontological ethics would probably make it categorically wrong too, but only siths deal in absolutes).



Well, obviously depends on whether or not more work is a bad thing for me. We'll assume that more work is an injury. In that case, you have caused injury to me as well as to the person you killed as well as to the family. It's pretty obvious that when a family member is killed, the family is injured in some way. Obviously our moral intuitions tell us to give a grieving person a hug or card or something.

Our moral intuitions also tell us that death is bad. But if, in death, a person can't feel any pain, and if pain is the criterion for determining if something is good or bad, how can death be an injury to the person who no longer exists? That's my segway to the second example.

Death is bad for the person who no longer exists, the object of the death. The reason for this is that when we kill a person, we take away that person's future. A person's future contains the potential for pleasurable experiences. Removing that potential is injuring the person.

Why do I bother talking about life being a good thing because of its potential for experiences? Why, even if I couldn't feel pain, I would still want to live. I might not care if someone tortured me, or if I stubbed my toe, etc. But I would care if my potential to experience was taken away.

When you say that these rocks are intelligent, surely you don't just mean "having knowledge." A computer contains a bunch of data that might make it "intelligent" in that way. Surely you mean instead a certain self-awareness. The rock in your example knows that it exists. It can't feel pain, but surely it must have some non-physical pleasure in knowing that it exists and experiencing its world. Killing it would deprieve it of this pleasure. Plants are not similarly self-aware. Killing it does not take away any non-physical pleasure nor does it cause pain.

If it doesn't feel pleasure OR pain, then I actually do think it's morally justified to kill the rock.

Here's the other question: if not pain, where do we draw the line?

Rationality? Species membership?

The problem is that we can no longer draw sharp lines. In the good old days, humans were the only ones who were rational or experienced pain. So naturally, if you were human, you were safe. Anything else? No protection.

Evolutionary theory has completely destroyed these lines. Rhesus monkeys show signs of altruism. Pigs have signs of sentience.

As you've continually pointed out, plants DO respond. Animals respond too. Humans as well. The difference is not whether or not they respond. The difference is in the degree at which they respond. It seems impossible, as you pointed out, to draw the line. You seem to reject the fact that vegans draw the line based on responding to pain in a way similar to humans.

The problem is, we have to draw the line somewhere. We cannot allow ourselves to be completely paralyzed from taking any action. We may not be able to protect all species, but we have to do the best thing that we can.

For this reason, we prioritize individuals based on pain. A human being's life might come before a pig's life because, unlike the pig, a human being has a higher degree of pain and pleasure sensory. Think of all of the things that human beings get pleasure from: art, love, etc. And the things we also get pain from: fear of future consequences, frustration, disappointment, etc.

A vegan recognizes that human beings may ultimately have higher moral status, but they also realize that if a human being can survive without causing pain to other species, then a human being should do so. But not just live as in only eating fruit and nuts and being hungry most of the time and unhealthy. A utilitarian vegan weighs the pain caused by the diet versus the pleasure it produces and concludes the diet is the better moral option.


Now, in getting to your point:



I think you might argue that there is something else that's bad other than feeling pain. Maybe it's bad for us to kill plants. Maybe humans lack the capacity to understand "plant pain." This is responded to by my argument that we have to have some moral system, and we have to be able to do *something*. There is always the possibility that human morality is flawed because we don't understand something, but until we understand "plant pain" we shouldn't just starve to death. We should fight the things we know to be evil first. After all, what about non-living things? Maybe we shouldn't eat ANYTHING because fruit and nuts and tofu also respond---just in a way different from humans.

I thought that this thread said "Evil Vaginas" orginally, and I clicked to be like "come on now, we're not all bad."

Though after skimming this thread, I would rather the evil vaginas thread.

Evil Vagina sounds kinda hot.

Unless it spurts like magma or something. That wouldn't be any good.

owie

You haven't actually made any valid points in a thread you've posted in about veganism. I'm not saying that I dislike you; you're level headed on every other topic. Don't pretend it's a personal issue. You simply post that everyone's wrong, that you're right, and then try to leave the thread on that note. You've never actually mentioned specifically any of your valid arguments, or pointed reasonings. You simply say everyone's ignorant and biased and you're a victim.


That's the exact attitude I was talking about. We must be wrong because we don't know as much as you. Sorry, but you haven't shown you know anything more than anyone else.


The difference is that you think it's morally incorrect to eat animals because... well, I really don't know why. You've never actually given a good reason.