Philosophical Vegan Forum

The main argument in the vegan atheist point is that animals are sentient. This means
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
synonyms: (capable of) feeling, living, live; More.
But vegans are all for eating plants which are also sentient.
This is a hot topic. Learn more heres
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/79193241 ... gan-ethics
Vegans also need to learn about the circle of life and the food chain
The food chain goes producers(energy from sun, minerals, waters...etc) then the thing which eats that herbivores, then the predictor wich eats that omnivore,meat eater. Humans are at the top of the food chain for millenniums, as caveman we ate meat and berries. The meat was essential to our diet because it gave us calories.

Answer me this vegans, if we evolve to adapt to this planet, with stuff that benefit us, like eyes not on are feat, then why does meat taste so good. So many humans love the taste of burgers, steak and stuff. If it was bad for humans shouldn't it taste bad. If your gonna argue sugar a little is good if you have exercise and a healthy diet. Same as meat. Vegans have a steak and relax.

And please don't go all creationist on evolution explaines nothing... Blah blah blah. Just take it as fact.


I would very much like the vegan atheist to comment on this.

Superlol wrote:The main argument in the vegan atheist point is that animals are sentient. This means
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
synonyms: (capable of) feeling, living, live; More.
But vegans are all for eating plants which are also sentient.
This is a hot topic. Learn more heres
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/79193241 ... gan-ethics
Vegans also need to learn about the circle of life and the food chain
The food chain goes producers(energy from sun, minerals, waters...etc) then the thing which eats that herbivores, then the predictor wich eats that omnivore,meat eater. Humans are at the top of the food chain for millenniums, as caveman we ate meat and berries. The meat was essential to our diet because it gave us calories.

Answer me this vegans, if we evolve to adapt to this planet, with stuff that benefit us, like eyes not on are feat, then why does meat taste so good. So many humans love the taste of burgers, steak and stuff. If it was bad for humans shouldn't it taste bad. If your gonna argue sugar a little is good if you have exercise and a healthy diet. Same as meat. Vegans have a steak and relax.

And please don't go all creationist on evolution explaines nothing... Blah blah blah. Just take it as fact.


I would very much like the vegan atheist to comment on this.

you started out with an article and I think you missed the first paragraph. "None of these articles claim that plants certainly feel pain or have conscious “interests,”" The reason that articles talk about plant "pain" and "intelligence" is because they need to make it anthropomorphic so that the average reader can semi understand it. Like when someone says' "smart computer" the computer isn't actually thinking.

When someone is said to be a "vegetable" they have no brain function. People who eat meat are comfortable with these people being organ donors because they understand that consciousness is found in the brain, not just by having living tissues. So if you agree with organ donations from brain dead humans, then you understand the moral implications and differences between taking organs from animals and eating brainless plants. does that make sense?

Again your food chain argument is an appeal to nature. There is not one nutrient you can't get from being a vegan or that your body doesn't produce on its own. I know that may shock you bu,t there are a lot of myths out there so before you look online to try to prove me wrong, please check your sources and look for the opposition. I know, considering the opposite sides position is difficult, but I have changed my ideas often. I feel like it's the only way to grow intellectually and as a human.

Superlol wrote: But vegans are all for eating plants which are also sentient.

no, plants have been shown to react to their environment, but not proven to be sentient.

Vegans also need to learn about the circle of life and the food chain

Naturalistic fallacy. Just because we can do something doesn't in any way inform us of what we should do. What may have once been convenient or necessary is no longer necessary, and so as rational creatures we should reevaluate our actions to best suit our changing knowledge.

Humans are at the top of the food chain for millenniums

Id like to see how well you fair naked and without any modern aid. Ive seen a few episodes of the TV show Naked and Afraid, in which 2 purportedly expert survivalists have to survive 3 weeks in the wild without clothing and no supplies (except 1 item per person). Even these people, who know how to hunt and build fires, are near starvation at the end of the 3 weeks (if they make it). Individually we are not apex predators, but with the aid of community and passing down learned information and supplies, we are a a formable force.
The reality is for the most part, the large majority of the human population no longer needs to eat and use animals to survive, but we continue to do so out of tradition, pleasure and convenience.

The meat was essential to our diet because it gave us calories

All food has calories. The quantity of calories is important but not the only factor. Meat does not contain all necessary nutrients for survival.

Answer me this vegans, if we evolve to adapt to this planet, with stuff that benefit us, like eyes not on are feat, then why does meat taste so good

Answer me this meat eater: if we evolved to adapt to this planet, with stuff that benefits us, like eyes not on our feet, then why does HUMAN flesh taste so good? We are made up of the same stuff as the animals you routinely eat, so if you enjoy other animals, why would you think that human meat would be much different? Your argument is essentially: "if animals didnt want to be eaten, then why are they made out of meat?" We too are made out of meat, and I doubt you would suggest that we should be allowed to eat other humans.

So many humans love the taste of burgers, steak and stuff. If it was bad for humans shouldn't it taste bad

enjoying something is not a sign of health. There are millions of people who smoke cigarettes, and nobody is going to suggest that smoking is healthy. Animal products are high in fat, and our body has evolved to desire fat, salt, sugar as a means to survive. We are also creatures of habit, so if you were fed a particular way as a child, we often gravitate towards the foods we are familiar with as adults. If you change your diet, you will learn to crave other foods. I once salivated when smelling animal products, but today (and for many years) the smell of meat or eggs makes me feel disgusted.

And please don't go all creationist on evolution explaines nothing... Blah blah blah. Just take it as fact.

I will not take your words as fact, as you clearly do not speak from a position of knowledge. Do you reject evolution?

Touché. I'll try again with another when i can use new studies

Superlol wrote:Touché.

This is the most intelligent and honest thing you have said yet on this forum.
As such, I am dignifying you with a reply.

Superlol wrote:I'll try again with another when i can use new studies

I wouldn't hold your breath for new studies.

Plant sentience would disprove evolution.

Why?

Because sentience has a particular purpose.

Sentience is not simply responding to stimuli - which happens in computers, simple mechanical devices, and even simple chemical reactions; e.g. baking soda 'responds' to vinegar by releasing CO2.
These kinds of responses are fully automatic, and are also the function of our reflexes (withdrawing your hand from a hot surface) -- you only perceive and feel the pain 'consciously' afterwards, and then can decide what to do about it from there.

Sentience involves comprehension and understanding of that stimuli in context of an intelligent will- without which the term is meaningless. Mere automatic reflex is not adequate.

Why can't plants be sentient?

Because sentience requires very rudimentary intelligence (some worms have enough, some seem not to -- Yes, there are non-sentient animals, and there's a 'type' of vegan who eats non-sentient animals).

The evolutionary relevance is that plants do not need this ability in order to suit their environments.
They are non-motile beings, that exist in a fixed place. Because they can not move in real time to retreat from threats, they don't need intelligence to manage that movement and respond dynamically to changing threats.

All they need to do is grow toward the sun, or produce bitter substances when chewed on- all of which are handled just fine by perfectly automatic processes without the involvement of even rudimentary intelligence.

An organism evolving some kind of trait which serves no purpose (like plant intelligence) would contradict natural selection, and disprove evolution as it is currently understood.

If evolution is true, plants can not be sentient.

Only vegans who do not really believe in or understand evolution tend to spend time worrying about this matter.

It should also be noted that if hypothetically plants where sentient then veganism and the abolition of the meat industry would still be a more humane choice considering most plant products go to the 150 billion livestock we keep every year.

It should also be noted that vegans are not against using animal products if your life depends on it, such as a medicine or antidote for a life threatening ilness. Same would be the case with plant products since we need it to survive, we don't need meat.

Superlol wrote:Touché. I'll try again with another when i can use new studies

this shows that you are desided on your views, you will not react to new data. after all your arguments where debunked you still stand by your views spite the fact that there is evidently not enougth evidence to justify your stance.

what would it take for you to consider adopting a vegan lifestyle?

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is the most intelligent and honest thing you have said yet on this forum.
As such, I am dignifying you with a reply.

I would think simple respect and manners would suffice. "Talking" to someone on the internet and making yourself sound far more Superior is childish at best. No matter how different our opinions are on a matter we should be adult enough to act with respect and understanding. Belittling people only makes more confrontation and further divides us as a society.

brimstoneSalad wrote:
I wouldn't hold your breath for new studies.

Plant sentience would disprove evolution.

Why?

Because sentience has a particular purpose.

Sentience is not simply responding to stimuli - which happens in computers, simple mechanical devices, and even simple chemical reactions; e.g. baking soda 'responds' to vinegar by releasing CO2.
These kinds of responses are fully automatic, and are also the function of our reflexes (withdrawing your hand from a hot surface) -- you only perceive and feel the pain 'consciously' afterwards, and then can decide what to do about it from there.

Sentience involves comprehension and understanding of that stimuli in context of an intelligent will- without which the term is meaningless. Mere automatic reflex is not adequate.

Why can't plants be sentient?

Because sentience requires very rudimentary intelligence (some worms have enough, some seem not to -- Yes, there are non-sentient animals, and there's a 'type' of vegan who eats non-sentient animals).

The evolutionary relevance is that plants do not need this ability in order to suit their environments.
They are non-motile beings, that exist in a fixed place. Because they can not move in real time to retreat from threats, they don't need intelligence to manage that movement and respond dynamically to changing threats.

All they need to do is grow toward the sun, or produce bitter substances when chewed on- all of which are handled just fine by perfectly automatic processes without the involvement of even rudimentary intelligence.

An organism evolving some kind of trait which serves no purpose (like plant intelligence) would contradict natural selection, and disprove evolution as it is currently understood.

If evolution is true, plants can not be sentient.

Only vegans who do not really believe in or understand evolution tend to spend time worrying about this matter.

The issue with HUMANS and sentience as well as intelligence is they are diverged from what we know and think we know. However, both of these words could very well be apart of any life: plant, viruses, etc. We base these WORDS on what we think we know and understand and for this reason we cannot fathom an intelligent life form such as a flower, insect, spider, etc. They are mindless creatures with no intelligence or sentience, but they all could have it because at the end of the day we are using human science and thinking to judge what we truly do not understand.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: I would think simple respect and manners would suffice. "Talking" to someone on the internet and making yourself sound far more Superior is childish at best.

Right back at you guv'nor. Congratulations on being so rude and condescending yourself while hiding it under the guise of being prim and proper. How about you step down off your high horse and join us lowly plebes?

What I did was honest and transparent. He was being an idiot, and I wasn't going to engage with him.

Now you're being an idiot, but you're less of an idiot than he is and you might learn something if I school you, so I'll give it a go.
I'm not going to go easy on you. If you're such a dainty little flower that you can't take a little mockery on the internet, you might want to do some soul searching.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:No matter how different our opinions are on a matter we should be adult enough to act with respect and understanding.

Bullshit. Not all opinions deserve respect, and the people who convey those profoundly wrong and arrogantly wrong opinions should feel the social ostracization those opinions bring them.

Sam Harris wrote:Take, for example, the people who think Elvis is still alive… What’s wrong with this claim? Why is this claim not vitiating our academic departments and corporations? I’ll tell you why, and it’s very simple. We have not passed laws against believing Elvis is still alive. It’s just whenever somebody seriously represents his belief that Elvis is still alive – in a conversation, on a first date, at a lecture, at a job interview – he immediately pays a price. He pays a price in ill-concealed laughter.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:Belittling people only makes more confrontation and further divides us as a society.

Then how about you STFU and stop doing it? Oh, wait, it's because you're a hypocrite, sorry.

Belitting people spreading moronic ideas helps other people understand that they should not be taken seriously, particularly people spreading dangerous and dishonest pseudoscience which, for theft of legitimate and fancy sounding terminology, might confuse the general public.

Society can benefit from ridiculing the ridiculous.

If you don't think so, then you don't have to do it. But stop pretending you're so high and mighty to judge everybody else when we do what we think is proper.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: The issue with HUMANS and sentience as well as intelligence is they are diverged from what we know and think we know.

Blah blah, humans know nothing about the universe blah blah.

You obviously have no respect for science, or the vast achievements we have made. Maybe it's because of your profound scientific illiteracy, or because you've bought into new-age woo propaganda that seeks to discredit science because they disagree with scientific findings.

I hope it's the former, which can be corrected with a little bit of light reading. Pick any book on science written by a real scientist ever.
There are reasons we know what we do, and a strict methodology behind it. When you understand that methodology, maybe you will find yourself capable of a little more respect.

If it's the latter, you're probably hopeless. All I can do is say snap out of it. Get to understand science before you dismiss it.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: However, both of these words could very well be apart of any life: plant, viruses, etc.

No, they could not. If you understood what they meant, or the first thing about these organisms, you would know that.

This is like somebody completely ignorant of geometry coming into a math class and calling everybody so arrogant because squares could be circular. Circle and square are just WORDS on what we think we know!!!111

You're making yourself look like a complete idiot.

Figure out what these words mean before you put your foot in your mouth.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote: We base these WORDS on what we think we know and understand and for this reason we cannot fathom an intelligent life form such as a flower, insect, spider, etc. They are mindless creatures with no intelligence or sentience

Moronic ignorance here. Nobody is claiming that spiders are not sentient or intelligent. There is actually evidence -- because that's how things work in the real world outside your fairytale land of woo -- that spiders ARE quite intelligent (and thus sentient).

Flowers are not.

TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:, but they all could have it because at the end of the day we are using human science and thinking to judge what we truly do not understand.

No, YOU do not understand it. Stop being such an asshole and telling everybody else what they don't understand.

I understand it quite well, and so does science. It's not "human science", it's just science. Stop with the new-age propaganda bullshit. It's also not "human logic", it's just logic. This kind of anti-science and anti-logic woo nonsense will not make you friends among those with brains in their skulls.

If you want to say that YOU don't understand something, I will respect you. I will try to help you understand it. If you want to insist in your ignorance and arrogance that NOBODY understands something, you will earn my contempt.

Remove your head from your ass, please. Speak for yourself, and not for things that YOU have clearly demonstrated that you really don't understand (science).
Learn before you make a fool of yourself like this.

And no, insulting you does not hurt my argument one bit. You're being an idiot. Deeply ignorant, and deeply haughty and arrogant at the same time. You think you're being all polite, but you're being an asshole, and you're both disrespecting and deeply insulting all of us here.