Philosophical Vegan Forum

Posted: **Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:36 am**

miniboes wrote:
dinnermeal wrote: And no, I'm a healthy weight, although in the last year or two I've had a much worse appetite.
Why are your parents forcing you to eat unhealthy food then?

Yeah, it's your body. They shouldn't force you to eat unhealthy things just as much as they shouldn't force you to smoke.
If you really want to go veg*n, just tell your parents why you want it (ethical, environmental, health, whatever resonates most with you) and try to assure them that you won't be missing out on any nutrients. You could refer them to people like Joel Fuhrman, Neal Barnard or Michael Greger to have an authority voice support you.[/quote]

True, there's no reason to eat unhealthy if I can eat healthy foods without losing too much weight. And even if I don't become a vegetarian right now, I would like substitutes for my dairy products. Thanks for the advice. I'm sure my vegetarian Uncle and Aunt would give me some support, too.

Posted: **Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:46 am**

You have a vegetarian aunt and uncle?

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:35 am**

Humane Hominid wrote: The burden of proof properly lies with those who deny animal sentience, not those who accept it. Perhaps ironically to some, vegans are defenders of the scientific consensus on this one.

Actually, that is not entirely true. Let's change the subject to God. Those who believe have to bear the proof, not those who disbelieve God. Another example would be a Tree is sentience. However, it is up to the person making the POSITIVE claim (trees are sentient) to prove this and not the person making the NEGATIVE claim (they are not sentient). Because by your own logic then it would be up to Atheists to disprove God and not creationists.

And yes I do believe all life is sentient and even intelligent in their own ways. Perhaps more so in ways we humans could never truly understand.

AND now to the question at hand....

I eat it because that is what I was raised on. I'm not going to try and sugar coat it or make it sound less moral, or if I have some higher knowledge of why I do it other then it is what I grew up doing. I'm not going to say it taste good because...well so does an Apple, carrots, a banana, and so on. At its core it is what I was raised to do. Now that I am older I eat it in "moderation" and eat more fruits and vegetables.

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:04 am**

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:Actually, that is not entirely true. Let's change the subject to God.

That is a fallacious comparison. God has neither been proven nor disproven.
Animal sentience has been proven, multiple times by science, and it's even self-evident, so it'd be absurd to deny it.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:And yes I do believe all life is sentient and even intelligent in their own ways. Perhaps more so in ways we humans could never truly understand.

That is outright wrong. Not all life is sentient, and not all life has intelligence.
Plants are not sentient, and even certain types of animals (like sponges).
To have sentience, something must have a nervous system and a neurological system. Without those, sentience cannot take place - and plants have neither.
And same goes for intelligence, since intelligence and sentience are usually related - even though intelligence can have different meanings.
Without cognitive capabilities, there cannot be intelligence.

What leads you to think that all life is sentient?

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:I eat it because that is what I was raised on.

'because that is what I was raised on' is meaningless by itself. What do you imply with that? People are usually raised in a certain way, but this alone doesn't hold them from changing.
Meaby you meant 'I eat it because that is what I was raised on, so I'm too used to it to change'?
Or 'I eat it because that is what I was raised on, so it's too convenient for me to change'?
Or meaby 'I eat it because that is what I was raised on, and I'm too lazy to change'?

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:14 pm**

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: Actually, that is not entirely true. Let's change the subject to God.

Yes, it is entirely true. And no, you may not change the subject to "God". Sentience is a matter of scientific fact and evidence, is it not some undefined abstract unfalsifiable notion. There is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of animal sentience (that is, for certain groups with brains; not including animals like sponges and jellyfish without brains).

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:However, it is up to the person making the POSITIVE claim (trees are sentient) to prove this and not the person making the NEGATIVE claim (they are not sentient).

No, that's not how it works AT ALL.

Logic is not a word game.
All claims are positive and negative, it depends on how you word them. Burden of proof is based on assertion of any kind. It doesn't matter if a claim is "Positive" or "Negative" as you say it; that's meaningless.

The fact that you don't understand this is very troubling. This is something very, very, basic. And it's insulting that you're even presuming to argue this point.

Anyhow, in any empirical case, the burden of proof belongs to those who are asserting something against established evidence.
And that is the important matter here.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: Because by your own logic then it would be up to Atheists to disprove God and not creationists.

Since that is a non-empirical case, if Atheists made an assertion that god does not exist, rather than just not accepting the claim that it does, then they would have the burden of proof if they wanted to argue that assertion.

That has nothing to do with the issue of sentience, though, which is an empirical matter.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: And yes I do believe all life is sentient and even intelligent in their own ways. Perhaps more so in ways we humans could never truly understand.

Which is what makes you a woo. Your contempt for science and logic is palpable.

I'm hoping you're open minded enough to realize that, and change your ways.

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:52 pm**

Okay, I don't think it's on us to provide evidence that plants are not sentient, but here I go. And since you seem to like logic, logical arguments shall be provided. Forgive me if there are some spelling mistakes, I'm typing on my iPad.

So before we start, let's define sentience. I see it as the ability to experience sensations, to feel if you will. For example, when I open my window I feel a fresh breeze and when I see a shady guy approaching me I'll get nervous.

So proof for animal sentience is quite clear; you swing your arm at a fly, it flies away out of fear. You step on a cat's tail, it will express pain.

So where do animals get this from? Brains and nervous systems, all across the board. I come too close to the fire, my nerves send a signal to my brain which I experience as heat.

No nervous system or brain has ever been found in a plant, so as far as we know they have no means to experience sensations. There is no reason to think they can feel if no means to do so are in place.

There is incredible evidence for animal sentience and none for plant sentience, thus the reasonable thing to believe is that animals are sentient and plants are not.

I eat it because that is what I was raised on.

If I was raised with the belief that to steal, rape and murder is the right thing to do, would that make it so?

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:02 pm**

thebestofenergy wrote:
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:Actually, that is not entirely true. Let's change the subject to God.
That is a fallacious comparison. God has neither been proven nor disproven.
Animal sentience has been proven, multiple times by science, and it's even self-evident, so it'd be absurd to deny it.

Actually no. The issue with any SUBJECT is people. No matter what evidence you provide many will still deny it. This is a fact and flaw among humans as a whole. Also I don't see why speak as if I had said animals are not sentient. I never said it or suggested it. So getting butt hurt over nothing shows little of your ability to pay attention and not assume something simply based on that you miss understood it.

thebestofenergy wrote:That is a fallacious comparison. God has neither been proven nor disproven.
Animal sentience has been proven, multiple times by science, and it's even self-evident, so it'd be absurd to deny it./quote]

Actually it isn't. Mankind has proven many things and people still deny the evidence to those cases. You simply failed to grasp the point I was making.

thebestofenergy wrote: That is outright wrong. Not all life is sentient, and not all life has intelligence.
Plants are not sentient, and even certain types of animals (like sponges).
To have sentience, something must have a nervous system and a neurological system. Without those, sentience cannot take place - and plants have neither.
Again you didn't even read what I said or understood it. I said THEY could OUT SIDE of HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. We think for, we think we know everything, but the truth is we are using human perception to understand the world around us. So this mean humans bases sentience off our selves. I simply stated that they could have it, but it is beyond our understanding or knowing.

thebestofenergy wrote: And same goes for intelligence, since intelligence and sentience are usually related - even though intelligence can have different meanings.
Without cognitive capabilities, there cannot be intelligence.
Again your basing this on human perception and how we see and perceive intelligence.

thebestofenergy wrote: What leads you to think that all life is sentient?
I believe anything is possible, just improbable. Because we as a species see ourselves on a higher "order" we look at other things as less: intelligent, sentient, and even a life form itself. Everything we know is based on our own perception of our own reality that is best suited for us. This is why you cannot fathom the idea that a plant could be sentient or intelligent because of human perception and knowledge. However, they could be sentient and even intelligent on their own level (non-human). Intelligence is not limited to knowing, building, making, etc. we has a species see it that way because we consider ourselves to be sentient and intelligent.

thebestofenergy wrote: 'because that is what I was raised on' is meaningless by itself. What do you imply with that? People are usually raised in a certain way, but this alone doesn't hold them from changing.
And what would you like some loaded philosophical explanation that you still would not accept?

thebestofenergy wrote: Meaby you meant 'I eat it because that is what I was raised on, so I'm too used to it to change'?
I don't see a reason to change? Which I did mention I eat less meat. Everything in moderation.

thebestofenergy wrote: Or 'I eat it because that is what I was raised on, so it's too convenient for me to change'?
Is it to convenient for you to respect my decisions and opinion instead of trying to belittle me?

thebestofenergy wrote: Or meaby 'I eat it because that is what I was raised on, and I'm too lazy to change'?

So your going to be that Vegan and act just like you closed minded meat eating counter parts on your position?

miniboes wrote:Okay, I don't think it's on us to provide evidence that plants are not sentient, but here I go.

You missed the whole point of that entire statement.

miniboes wrote: So before we start, let's define sentience. I see it as the ability to experience sensations, to feel if you will. For example, when I open my window I feel a fresh breeze and when I see a shady guy approaching me I'll get nervous.

As I already stated you are using a HUMAN PERCEPTION and HUMAN created WORDS to help your argument. However, they could be sentient on a level that is beyond our human understanding. That is all I am saying. I am not saying for a FACT that they are or are not...simply that it is possible.

miniboes wrote: So proof for animal sentience is quite clear; you swing your arm at a fly,

No, you as a HUMAN are assuming the fly dodges the "attack" out of fear. But neither I or you could prove or disprove if a fly feels fear. Again your using human perception. What we know of our selves must be self evident for all other life.

miniboes wrote: So where do animals get this from? Brains and nervous systems, all across the board. I come too close to the fire, my nerves send a signal to my brain which I experience as heat.

No nervous system or brain has ever been found in a plant, so as far as we know they have no means to experience sensations. There is no reason to think they can feel if no means to do so are in place.

Again, human perception. One could argue that their brain is simply to small (not saying they have one).

miniboes wrote: If I was raised with the belief that to steal, rape and murder is the right thing to do, would that make it so?

That is a very weak argument. It like comparing Apples to Beets.

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:05 pm**

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: So getting butt hurt over nothing shows little of your ability to pay attention and not assume something simply based on that you miss understood it.

I called it first!

Proof that this "AgnosticAthist" fellow is a hypocritical asshole, not the least bit interested in actual discussion.

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:15 pm**

brimstoneSalad wrote: I called it first!

Proof that this "AgnosticAthist" fellow is a hypocritical asshole, not the least bit interested in actual discussion.

Once again proof that you are READING with EMOTION as well as ignoring everything else I said...

I also like you calling me the hypocrite when your the one throwing out childish insults such as "asshole."

Posted: **Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:16 pm**

miniboes wrote:And since you seem to like logic, logical arguments shall be provided.

He has some pretty serious contempt for "human logic", he likes magical "logic" that he defines the rules for as it suits him. I don't think you'll get anywhere, sadly. He's a pretty hard core woo.

He uses logic like a creationist who thinks he or she is using science.

miniboes wrote:So proof for animal sentience is quite clear; you swing your arm at a fly, it flies away out of fear. You step on a cat's tail, it will express pain.

Those aren't the best examples, since they can be reflexive. Like, you touch a hot stove and you pull away your hand. In order to be sentient, it must be registered and perceived/understood as an experience. That means choices need to depend on it.

It's like the pone rings, but the answering machine picks up instead of the person.

Brain dead people can also engage in reflexes, along with individual cells. This isn't sentience because the signal isn't ending anywhere where it can be given contextual meaning.

The best examples are more complex, and involve basic problem solving and learning and behavioral change.

Like a mouse pushes a button and gets food, and it learns to push the button more- you know, then, that the mouse really wants the food, because behavior was changed to get it. If you make the button not give food, but something else does, the mouse will learn to do that instead. It's proof that it's not just a reflex that you're after to prove sentience.

Plant behavior is purely reflexive, like sponges, likely jellyfish, probably oysters, and various other simple brainless animals. They can't learn, only be sensitized. As such, they can not really feel or want anything, because they can't process those things.

Philosophical Vegan Forum

Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?

Re: Why Do You Eat Animals?