metaphorx said:
Frame, there is more than considerable evidence that plants respond to specific sensory stimuli, but at the same time there is very little scientific to suggest that they have the capacity to feel pain. YOU COME BACK TO ME WITH THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PLANTS FEEL PAIN AND THEN I'LL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!
So, it doesn't matter that it's a living thing with feelings? It only matters if those feelings fit your human concept of discomfort? There was a young girl I saw on TV recently whose brain could not register pain. She could get tachtile responses, but they had to bias towards the positive or negative. She had nearly blinded herself because she could scratch her own corneas, she had no pain response that kept her from hurting herself in that way. Does this girl no longer count as human? She was a living thing, she could respond to stimuli, but she felt no pain.
Ok, we agree that plants feel and respond to the feelings, so wouldn't there be, almost by definition, some feelings that were positive (ie, moving toward the sunlight) and some that were negative (ie, curling up to avoid predators). Pain (as we understand it) is a negative feeling, joy (again, as we understand it) is a positive feeling. The plants version of pain might not be as complex as ours, but I think the arguement could be made that, even without "scientific proof," we have established that plants feel at least THEIR VERSION of pain.
metaphorx said:
I also don't follow the argument that I'm somehow brutal towards plants as I'm a great advocate of environmental protection in both theory and practice.
I was using the rhetoric directed normally directed at carnivores in order to make a point. I, personally, don't think there is anything wrong with eating either plants or animals, especially as a large portion of the animals we consume are artifically created 'surplus' animals who would not have exsisted if it were not for the people raising them for the express purpose of using them for food.
metaphorx said:
if you're a meat eater I've gone much further than you in being vegan in taking this moral high ground that your hypocrisy argument seems so keen to achieve.
I am a meat eater, I'm a confirmed heterotroph, I consume all manner of living things. I have no problem with it & I never felt I was morally superior or inferior for doing so. I do, however take offense at some (and I do stress
SOME ) vegans idea that their person dietary choice is a matter that they should use to elevate themselves above the other people in the world who have not made the same choice. I make stances and compromises in all aspects of my moral responsibilities, just as every other person on the planet does. Just because I do not choose to make one individual crusade my own does not mean that anyone has the right to belittle me. I'm not singling out anyone in particular here, just reacting to many different people I've encountered over the course of my exsistence who cannot grasp the idea that I cannot and will not react with the passion and fervour that they bring to the table (pun) because Ive set my priorities elsewhere. My point was intentionally over-the-top in order to pont out that EVERYONE draws a line somewhere. Some choose to eat plants despite their desire to not harm any living thing, some choose to eat animals and there's even a small percentage of people who have eaten other people. Honestly, I don't think that plants do feel pain, I was being hyperbolic in order to make a point - and specifically, to use some of the same arguements that vegans use in a way that showed how those arguements can cut both ways, if seen in certain context.
metaphorx said:
Furthermore, if we are to not eat plant products then what would we eat? If you count Gina Lynn's ass then perhaps I could be persuaded to quit veganism?
I'll be interested if anyone is ever allowed to come up with an answer to the first question - I certainly don't have one. As to the second, well, let's just say I know several nubiles who I would consider walking buffets. :rofl: