I cannot imagine myself without all the delicious varieties of meat, but I think it all comes down to beliefs & reasoning. I respect people who go down the vegetarian/vegan path, although I sometimes wonder why or how in the living hell they can pull it off...
I just hate those other meatless-diet pricks who try to enforce the way I eat, insult me for eating meat and try to force me to go vegan/vegetarian. I choose what I want to eat, nobody other than my family has a say in it.
While a direct comparison wouldn't fit, plants do react in a way that, if it were to be an analogized towards our feelings, would be pain.
The problem there is that "pain" cannot be expressed as a one time reaction. The reason pain is bad is because we have brains to process and store the information - something plants cannot do to the extent we can. If my processing power & memory was limited to that of a plant's, then pain would be irrelevant. The fact is however, it isn't.
I think pain very much matters, whether or not it's pain as we recognize it. If he is trying to refrain from causing pain towards things, then whether or not the thing can recall the pain seems to be irrelevant.
I think pain very much matters, whether or not it's pain as we recognize it. If he is trying to refrain from causing pain towards things, then whether or not the thing can recall the pain seems to be irrelevant.
Our communication breakdown is being caused by your multiple definitions for the word "pain."
I am using it as a term specific to the type of pain that mammals experience, whereas you are using it as a blanket term to describe all molecular processes that look like our "pain."
In order to express myself clearly, I am going to use to variables:
x == "the 'pain' mammals experience"
y == "all other 'pain-like' experiences gone through by non-mammals"
He is trying to avoid causing x to anything, anyone, or any being. He could care less about inflicting y upon anything, simply because we do not see y as a bad thing - we see x as a bad thing.
He is not inflicting x upon plants, because plants only experience y - not x.
Our communication breakdown is being caused by your multiple definitions for the word "pain."
I am using it as a term specific to the type of pain that mammals experience, whereas you are using it as a blanket term to describe all molecular processes that look like our "pain."
In order to express myself clearly, I am going to use to variables:
x == "the 'pain' mammals experience"
y == "all other 'pain-like' experiences gone through by non-mammals"
He is trying to avoid causing x to anything, anyone, or any being. He could care less about inflicting y upon anything, simply because we do not see y as a bad thing - we see x as a bad thing.
He is not inflicting x upon plants, because plants only experience y - not x.
So he is just being callous to other beings' pains, which might not directly resemble our pain, so that he may continue eating.
So he is just being callous to other beings' pains, which might not directly resemble our pain, so that he may continue eating.
First of all, there is some strong evidence supporting the probability that the experience plants have is nothing like our pain.
Secondly, what you just said is the he is callous because he doesnt care about a feeling that may or may not be similar to our pain.
Secondly, you're still using that blanket term. Don't do that anymore. This experience that plants have when we eat them cannot be categorized as good or bad, because we are not subject to it.
That argument is almost as valid as this one:
You're callous toward the ground when you walk on it, because it may or may not experience pain
^replace "ground" with "plants" and "walk on" with "eat" and you have your exact argument.
First of all, there is some strong evidence supporting the probability that the experience plants have is nothing like our pain.
Secondly, what you just said is the he is callous because he doesnt care about a feeling that may or may not be similar to our pain.
Secondly, you're still using that blanket term. Don't do that anymore. This experience that plants have when we eat them cannot be categorized as good or bad, because we are not subject to it.
That argument is almost as valid as this one:
^replace "ground" with "plants" and "walk on" with "eat" and you have your exact argument.
I am not saying at all that their pain is similar to ours, I am saying their pain is pain. And he says he doesn't want to eat things that can feel pain. Whether or not their pain is similar to ours seems to be irrelevant, if he only wishes to avoid eating things that feel it.
I am not saying at all that their pain is similar to ours, I am saying their pain is pain. And he says he doesn't want to eat things that can feel pain. Whether or not their pain is similar to ours seems to be irrelevant, if he only wishes to avoid eating things that feel it.
There's that blanket term again. Of course their [enter some feeling here] is [enter the same feeling here]. The question is: "what is that feeling?" Is it "pain" as we would experience? Or, is it some positive experience? OR, is it a neutral experience?
What he is trying to avoid inflicting on other beings is human-like pain. Not some other experience that may or may not be negative.
Whether or not there "pain" is similar to ours is exactly the point. If it isn't like ours, then it isn't pain, and shouldn't be tip toed around.
How are you defining "pain?"
There's that blanket term again. Of course their [enter some feeling here] is [enter the same feeling here]. The question is: "what is that feeling?" Is it "pain" as we would experience? Or, is it some positive experience? OR, is it a neutral experience?
What he is trying to avoid inflicting on other beings is human-like pain. Not some other experience that may or may not be negative.
Whether or not there "pain" is similar to ours is exactly the point. If it isn't like ours, then it isn't pain, and shouldn't be tip toed around.
How are you defining "pain?"
So then, by your supreme and awesome logic, he could eat a redhead, because they feel pain differently than the rest of humanity.
The difference there is that redheads still experience what they would call a negative experience. Plants don't experience anything negative, therefore they don't "care" (if they could care) if we eat them, or kill them.
Now, circling back to my original question, please define pain. The blanket term makes your logic sketchy and mildly difficult to follow.
The difference there is that redheads still experience what they would call a negative experience. Plants don't experience anything negative, therefore they don't "care" (if they could care) if we eat them, or kill them.
Now, circling back to my original question, please define pain. The blanket term makes your logic sketchy and mildly difficult to follow.
I thank you very much for defending me, but couldn't he come back and say 'anything negative' is a blanket term?
The difference there is that redheads still experience what they would call a negative experience. Plants don't experience anything negative, therefore they don't "care" (if they could care) if we eat them, or kill them.
Now, circling back to my original question, please define pain. The blanket term makes your logic sketchy and mildly difficult to follow.
Pain is an unpleasant feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli, such as stubbing a toe, burning a finger, putting alcohol on a cut, and bumping the "funny bone."
In that regards, the pain that the plant feels is a response towards the intense or damaging stimuli, such as chopping off one of its appendages.
I would like to see the article you have that says that the pain the plants feel does not involve anything negative.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
8/26/2011
Posts:
146
Minecraft:
TehLaziness
Member Details
This "him" you're talking about is me, right? xD
Anyways, to respond in my own words, there's a difference between plant-based "pain" and animal-based "pain" (I'm not going to bother making a distinction between the kinds of pain, since I don't think it makes a difference). The thing is, animals react and respond to pain. Even the most simple creature knows pain is bad, and actively seeks to avoid it. Animals learn, through experience, that pain is bad. Plants, on the other hand, merely experience the pain (if what you say is true). Nothing more, and nothing less. They don't associate the pain with anything, nor understand where the pain is coming from or even understand that they should avoid it. They just feel it. That's a difference in sentience that is quite apparent.
The way I described it is meant to be a simpler explanation of what I believe. For a more in-depth look, you might want to try reading "Animal Liberation", a book written by Peter Singer, who happens to be quite the famous modern-day philosopher.
If you can continue to provide an alternative view, Govna, I'd be happy to continue discussing this with you. But please, can we keep it civil? I'd rather not exchange back and forth one-liners and snide remarks.
Anyways, to respond in my own words, there's a difference between plant-based "pain" and animal-based "pain" (I'm not going to bother making a distinction between the kinds of pain, since I don't think it makes a difference). The thing is, animals react and respond to pain. Even the most simple creature knows pain is bad, and actively seeks to avoid it. Animals learn, through experience, that pain is bad. Plants, on the other hand, merely experience the pain (if what you say is true). Nothing more, and nothing less. They don't associate the pain with anything, nor understand where the pain is coming from or even understand that they should avoid it. They just feel it. That's a difference in sentience that is quite apparent.
The way I described it is meant to be a simpler explanation of what I believe. For a more in-depth look, you might want to try reading "Animal Liberation", a book written by Peter Singer, who happens to be quite the famous modern-day philosopher.
If you can continue to provide an alternative view, Govna, I'd be happy to continue discussing this with you. But please, can we keep it civil? I'd rather not exchange back and forth one-liners and snide remarks.
Plants, such as mimosas, react to stimuli by causing their leaves to close. And it has been shown that the act that causes the leaves to close, and electrical signal, is caused in other plants when one of their leaves is burned, torn etc. By closing it's leaves, it effectively shrinks itself, and makes it a much more obscure target for predators to eat. This would seemingly be a defense, or shying away, from pain caused by being consumed.
You could then suggest the survival aspect of the shrinking to survive, and it doesn't necessitate pain as we think it. But that is meaningless, as the very same could be suggest to our reactions to negative stimuli.
I would love to see where you are getting they do not know where the pain originates from, nor understand what it is.
I just hate those other meatless-diet pricks who try to enforce the way I eat, insult me for eating meat and try to force me to go vegan/vegetarian. I choose what I want to eat, nobody other than my family has a say in it.
Vegetarians eat eggs. Vegans don't eat eggs.
The problem there is that "pain" cannot be expressed as a one time reaction. The reason pain is bad is because we have brains to process and store the information - something plants cannot do to the extent we can. If my processing power & memory was limited to that of a plant's, then pain would be irrelevant. The fact is however, it isn't.
as MrVu said:
You can't make a good case based on a comparison between two similar, yet very different reactions - it doesnt work.
And, as you said:
Therefore, using it as an argument that he is inflicting the same pain on plants that he is avoiding inflicting on animals is just plain silly.
I think pain very much matters, whether or not it's pain as we recognize it. If he is trying to refrain from causing pain towards things, then whether or not the thing can recall the pain seems to be irrelevant.
Enjoying my ham sandwich
Our communication breakdown is being caused by your multiple definitions for the word "pain."
I am using it as a term specific to the type of pain that mammals experience, whereas you are using it as a blanket term to describe all molecular processes that look like our "pain."
In order to express myself clearly, I am going to use to variables:
x == "the 'pain' mammals experience"
y == "all other 'pain-like' experiences gone through by non-mammals"
He is trying to avoid causing x to anything, anyone, or any being. He could care less about inflicting y upon anything, simply because we do not see y as a bad thing - we see x as a bad thing.
He is not inflicting x upon plants, because plants only experience y - not x.
So he is just being callous to other beings' pains, which might not directly resemble our pain, so that he may continue eating.
First of all, there is some strong evidence supporting the probability that the experience plants have is nothing like our pain.
Secondly, what you just said is the he is callous because he doesnt care about a feeling that may or may not be similar to our pain.
Secondly, you're still using that blanket term. Don't do that anymore. This experience that plants have when we eat them cannot be categorized as good or bad, because we are not subject to it.
That argument is almost as valid as this one:
^replace "ground" with "plants" and "walk on" with "eat" and you have your exact argument.
I am not saying at all that their pain is similar to ours, I am saying their pain is pain. And he says he doesn't want to eat things that can feel pain. Whether or not their pain is similar to ours seems to be irrelevant, if he only wishes to avoid eating things that feel it.
There's that blanket term again. Of course their [enter some feeling here] is [enter the same feeling here]. The question is: "what is that feeling?" Is it "pain" as we would experience? Or, is it some positive experience? OR, is it a neutral experience?
What he is trying to avoid inflicting on other beings is human-like pain. Not some other experience that may or may not be negative.
Whether or not there "pain" is similar to ours is exactly the point. If it isn't like ours, then it isn't pain, and shouldn't be tip toed around.
How are you defining "pain?"
So then, by your supreme and awesome logic, he could eat a redhead, because they feel pain differently than the rest of humanity.
http://sciencenordic.com/redheads-feel-different-kind-pain
Redheads nom nom nom. Seriously though, I believe he meant the sentient experience of pain.
Red heads aren't sentient?
Not the ones I know. Naah, I'm just playing around, trying to lighten the mood.
The difference there is that redheads still experience what they would call a negative experience. Plants don't experience anything negative, therefore they don't "care" (if they could care) if we eat them, or kill them.
Now, circling back to my original question, please define pain. The blanket term makes your logic sketchy and mildly difficult to follow.
I thank you very much for defending me, but couldn't he come back and say 'anything negative' is a blanket term?
Pain is an unpleasant feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli, such as stubbing a toe, burning a finger, putting alcohol on a cut, and bumping the "funny bone."
In that regards, the pain that the plant feels is a response towards the intense or damaging stimuli, such as chopping off one of its appendages.
I would like to see the article you have that says that the pain the plants feel does not involve anything negative.
Anyways, to respond in my own words, there's a difference between plant-based "pain" and animal-based "pain" (I'm not going to bother making a distinction between the kinds of pain, since I don't think it makes a difference). The thing is, animals react and respond to pain. Even the most simple creature knows pain is bad, and actively seeks to avoid it. Animals learn, through experience, that pain is bad. Plants, on the other hand, merely experience the pain (if what you say is true). Nothing more, and nothing less. They don't associate the pain with anything, nor understand where the pain is coming from or even understand that they should avoid it. They just feel it. That's a difference in sentience that is quite apparent.
The way I described it is meant to be a simpler explanation of what I believe. For a more in-depth look, you might want to try reading "Animal Liberation", a book written by Peter Singer, who happens to be quite the famous modern-day philosopher.
If you can continue to provide an alternative view, Govna, I'd be happy to continue discussing this with you. But please, can we keep it civil? I'd rather not exchange back and forth one-liners and snide remarks.
Plants, such as mimosas, react to stimuli by causing their leaves to close. And it has been shown that the act that causes the leaves to close, and electrical signal, is caused in other plants when one of their leaves is burned, torn etc. By closing it's leaves, it effectively shrinks itself, and makes it a much more obscure target for predators to eat. This would seemingly be a defense, or shying away, from pain caused by being consumed.
You could then suggest the survival aspect of the shrinking to survive, and it doesn't necessitate pain as we think it. But that is meaningless, as the very same could be suggest to our reactions to negative stimuli.
I would love to see where you are getting they do not know where the pain originates from, nor understand what it is.