This is why I am not vegan or even vegetarian.
We recognise animal reactions so much more instinctively, and understand their physiology so much better because it is so much more similar to our own. Yet none of this is necessarily any indication of the ability of plants et al. to be experiencing any less intensely than animals. What if we cause organic non-animal much more “pain” in their experience of it than we do animals?
You didn’t actually respond to this post. You just typed out some nonsense.
That is very possible because we not only harvest from plants we chop them up to grow more, we snap stems, mow grass, etc… We don’t give plants the credit they deserve to be honest. The largest organism on earth is a parasitic mushroom thriving in Oregons forest, consuming the pine trees nutrients from the root systems.
I like that idea you have though because we really are ruthless with plants and that ruthlessness is or could be based on a misconception about them not being conscious. They definitely feel pain.
that is pretty far out there, like a flat earth out there.
How would you design an experiment to test that hypothesis? What data could we collect as evidence?
Suppose if they can talk we could always ask them. LOL. I can’t even figure out what my cat is trying to say but I sure know when I’ve accidentally stepped on his tail. Yet he doesn’t mind having his claws clipped, or his fur trimmed.
Mr. Reasonable:
It’s not nonsense and since you’ve read the entire thread, it accesses context.
Do you want the answer?
All the sex that human heterosexuals (including mine) has been rape. I’m not making the same mistake again, and you show that you’re not ready to own your behavior and it’s contribution to a consent violating reality.
I’m saying that you’ve hijacked the definition of rape and of consent for your own silly purposes, which are to conclude that everyone’s consent is always violated and that all sex is rape. It’s not philosophy to make a basic syllogistic argument, especially if you just define the terms however you want, and more so in a way that flies in the face of common sense and of the actual definitions of the terms that are established. And it certainly isn’t good science to use small samples of respondents in places with homogeneous political beliefs in an isolated place 30 years ago to make generalizations about all of humanity today or at any other time.
These are some of the basic flaws with your whole thesis here. You should consider addressing them instead of calling me a child and a rapist and telling me that I need to own my behavior.
You can see how doing that doesn’t further the dialogue or constitute any kind of review of your work right?
The common definition of rape is “no means yes”
The STUDIES (plural) have all proven sex dimorphic aversion.
You and I both know these studies aren’t flawed.
You’re looking like a jackass here.
Expose yourself as a male in the general population and find out how fast you end up in prison.
Have a female do it and find out the non-prison preferential treatment she receives.
That’s global, cross culturally …
You’re not just arguing with me, you’re arguing with axioms of social science:
Evolutionary psychology
Cultural anthropology
Sex researchers
Yes, you like to rape women.
You are a coward.
All the facts prove you wrong.
You’re not a man, you’re a no means yes man, a coward and rapist, by the only definition of rape that exists.
“no means yes” is not the common definition of rape.
All studies are flawed. That’s how science works. Your study, if it’s scientific, is in theory falsifiable. That means that if you keep gathering information, that it’s likely that over a long enough period of time you’ll debunk your own conclusion and advance your understanding of the world. That’s how science works. It doesn’t work if you just keep repeating it, ad homing those who seek dialogue about it, and refuse to respond to criticisms while ignoring the fallacies present in your description of your findings.
The rest of your post is just you calling me a jackass and a coward and a rapist.
You’re better than this.
Variances in enforcement of laws about people exposing themselves in public don’t entail it being a fact that all sex is rape. The jump you’re making is such an incredible one that on its very face it’s absurd.
Like you’re citing a “scientific study”, but you’re not reasoning like a scientist. There is a big difference between deciding on definitions, then plugging them into a syllogism, then showing soundness and validity in that syllogism and declaring Truth and thinking rationally about whether or not your ideas are merging with observable reality and determining if they will through a methodological approach that adheres to conventions in science.
Like if I say,
The universe is an egg.
Eggs are delicious.
The universe is delicious.
To bolster my reasoning I have a study here from the undergraduate chicken farming department of a college in Siberia where it shows that the majority of respondents agree that eggs are delicious.
So the universe is delicious and anyone who disagrees with me is a coward and a fool and possibly a rapist.
Then just respond to all criticisms by reposting the same thing and maybe throwing in that they are jackasses and that it’s an axiom of science that the universe is an egg.
quote=“Mr Reasonable”]"
The jump you’re making is such an incredible one that on its very face it’s absurd.
Yes , but there is a window of opportunity , wherein, he has a chance before the contradiction can be verified. Until then , any hypothesis may be proposed. as long as it appears half way reasonable
That’s awfully generous of you Meno.
This whole thing reminds me of that part of the Monty Python movie where they’re reasoning their way to the fact that the woman they’ve caught is a witch.
Just wanted to some degree square away a bit, the circle of doubt.
You’re violating the circle’s consent.
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … ystem.html
And actually they are finding more and more nervous system like responses in plants. Also cognitive like processes, complicated communication, even across species. Do we know they are experiencers? No. But it is hardly flat earth stuff at all.
Thanks Karp, my world just got a bit more spherical.
Hmmm?
science.howstuffworks.com/life/ … l-pain.htm
“The smell we associate with freshly cut grass is actually a chemical distress call, one used by plants to beg nearby critters to save them from attack (usually it’s an affront by insects, but in this case, it’s lawnmower blades). After all, when danger strikes – whether it’s landscaping equipment or a hungry caterpillar – plants can’t lift their roots and run. They must fight where they stand.”
Here’s one example. Don’t need a brain or central nervous system to react to stimuli/change. There are plants that can sense danger or pain and will kill you when they do, ones that release toxic gasses.
To be honest people are so worried about robots but probably should worry more about plants evolving further. That’s how certain I am that plants are aware more than what we give them credit for. You can yell at a plant or love your plant and it WILL show.
There is a parasitic fungus out there that can zombify ants and insects… Imagine if that species of fungus evolved and could effect humans… real possibilities.