Dad or Jail? chat & forums.

Unless you’re a Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, most of us accept that plants do not experience “pain.” I'm not sure where you got some of the comments you attributed to me either, because I never made any statements about "plant chemical signals that indicate damage are 'different'."

Furthermore, they are also very clearly conscious, by any definition

For a vegetarian the question doesn’t apply. There is a greater moral imperative for a meat-eater to avoid eating a primate than a lobster.

Mimicry, folding leaves, mechanical resistance, emitting various alkaloids or steroids and other such plant mechanisms all occur without the presence of consciousness or the presence of a cortex/central nervous system.

If you feel it is morally wrong to inflict pain, however caused, then the answer is clear. If you have no such qualms, then you can feel free to eat practically anything. You might even feel free to DO anything also, if you don’t have an internal compass that suggests that inflicting pain is perhaps something you ought not to do.

What gives you the right to inflict pain

If anything, the converse should be true – how do you personally justify eating anything?

And these would be……….? Blue-green algae? comatose animals? Road kill?

We share about 50-70% the same DNA with pumpkins and cabbages so obviously I'm not basing my statement purely on a percentage basis.

Clearly, any vegetarian or vegan would argue that it's appropriate to eat pumpkins and cabbages, rather than sea urchins, if presented with that choice, even though we bear less in common with sea urchins genetically. Along a similar vein, pumpkins and cabbages don't possess central nervous systems, and therefore don't experience pain. [/qu0te]

The same could be said about many members of the animal kingdom, but whether they experience 'pain' is debatable. What makes these animals 'better' than plants?

There is no "line" drawn anywhere.

If there is no line, how can those who eat tunicates be considered more moral than those who eat lobster? Or those who plants than those who eat animals? Based on your prior comments, I'm going to assume that you actually mean that there is no line OTHER than the one dividing animals from plants. But why put the line there? Are plants better than the animals that have a similar level of consciousness? What level, type, or speed of response to outside stimuli (what level of consciousness) is required for something to be protected from being eaten?

On a moral level, those of us confined to or choosing to eat a diet of tunicate might be more moral than those eating lobsters, even though I'm not sure who would eat tunicates anyway. Those who eat lobster might have a moral advantage over those who eat primates. But since the only people eating primates are usually indigenous people capturing them as bushmeat, how practical is your question really?

Our lineage has more recently diverged from tunicates than it has from lobsters, why are lobsters 'better'? I'm trying to understand the criteria that you (or anyone) use to rank organisms. Maybe because lobsters can walk?

What gives me the drive to survive also drives animals as well, so we are also united in that conscious will to avoid becoming dinner for something else.

You stated that it is less moral to eat a primate than it is a lobster. If we are united by our conscious will to avoid being eaten, on what basis do you determine that one variety or level of consciousness is better than another?
And what of animals that are not conscious? I don't know what your standard of consciousness is, but if you assume that all plants lack this trait.....then certainly you can agree that there are members of the animal kingdom that are comparable to plants in their ability to respond to outside stimuli or any other proposed definition. And if so, then your dividing line of 'Animals: No / Plants: Yes' is too simplistic. So....what are your REAL criteria?

If there is going to be some type of division of what is moral to eat and what is not, I would expect a less generalized justification than arbitrary (and often incorrect) 'similarity'.

If we are drawing the line at consciousness, why? If we are drawing the line at ability to feel pain, why? Both of these criteria are not quite as black and white as it appears that many people believe.
Pain is a signal from our body to another part of our body, to alert it of damage or potential damage (please let me know if you dispute this definition). By this definition, plants also feel pain. "But wait" you say "plant chemical signals that indicate damage are 'different'. We can't call that pain as well." Why? Is it because they are slower? Use different chemicals? Respond to the signal in different ways? All the same could be said about animals as well. All animals 'pain' responses are not exactly the same as ours, and many animals that people would consider 'conscious' have responses that are not much different (in terms of speed or functionality) to that of many plants.

Also, while not 'conscious' by the classical definition, plants have an innate interest in survival. Many take steps, both active and passive, to avoid being predated or to stop predation once started. Does the fact that animals use different methods to avoid predation automatically make their interest in survival superior to that of plants? In other words, does a rabbit's ability to run from a fox make it superior to the plant that secrets poison to stop from being eaten by the rabbit? If so, why not say that certain animals are superior to other animals? Some animals use methods to avoid predation that are more similar to our own, are they better than the ones that don't? If we can't determine that some animals are superior to other animals, why can we determine that all animals are superior to all plants?

I guess that I just fail to see how moral divisions, other than 'human vs non-human', are justified.

or consume animals that bear a genetic similarity to myself

If someone has a gun pointed at you, the object isn't trying to draw and shoot them before they can shoot you. The best thing to do is to try and disarm them. It can be done, but it takes training

That's when they inject intravenously hydrogen peroxide into the blood and it cleanses it. Please reply if you know if this works.

We can list lots of people who made just as large significant contributions to science as Darwin's, and many who made an even greater impact. Yet, these people hardly get a mention, and yet Darwin's name, and his discoveries, are mentioned and praised millions of times every day. One only has to look at these forums to see just how highly Darwin's theory is considered. If anything, I'm seriously understating the level of devotion and admiration of Darwin's theories.

So yes, I would agree that most people who believe in a religion don't really have committed worship. As a result, they would agree with you that Darwin and evolution are not deified, because they don't know what it is.

You're stating this as a fact. But so far, I really have no proof, other than your personal assertion, that you are right, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and that's not really that reliable, is it?

Deification is an expression, which means to make something into a god, or so important in your life, that it is as important to you, as G-d is to religious people.

I can understand how one might get a bit confused with this idea of deification, though. From a secular viewpoint, there is no mention of G-d, and no concept of anything that might have some connection with religion. As we live in a secular society, it's not something mentioned anymore, not for decades. So very few people even imagine the concept, in any real way, other than if someone tells them that someone believes in a god, which is theism, not deification. Deification is when you treat something or someone as if it was a god, or ascribed to have god-like attributes, even without ever saying you consider the person or thing as a god. It requires great effort to imagine a concept that you've been taught to ignore for decades of your life. However, once you make the effort, you can see that the word could apply to many avenues of life.

So you are basically saying that you are randomly going around and using your debit card without knowing how much is in your account?

Well, then more people should shop around and find the institute that fits their options.

You also have hydrochloric acid

Not in a statistically significant way (probability wise) that would negate the risk of "diminished returns".

The vaccine contains squalene, which was determined to be the cause of the 'gulf war syndrome' as it is a neurotoxin

mutations are rare, all seem to be bad

IT HAS PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT PART IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

People don't think in words either; it would be much too inefficient and our thoughts would be too ambiguous if we did.

If this polploidy were natural and just a fluke that we humans exploited, it would have to be a pretty "easy" thing to happen. How easy is polyploidy, really?

Not absurd at all. Clearly there is a difference between the inanimate objects you've mentioned here and animals which have central nervous systems, feel pain and fear, and suffer confinement in many cases.

Sorry Susan, but humans are far more adapted to a vegetarian diet.

And certainly factory farms are not within the natural order of things. They are an aberration and exist merely for convenience, and lifestyle choice of the people that support them.

Squalene was in the anthrax vaccinations

Squalene is a naturally occurring oil, found in the human brain, joints, and other places, but is never found in the blood stream.