canuckistani
-
Posts
2,769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by canuckistani
-
-
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:
Sorry but you using science gibberish (not the authors words/YOURS) doesnt wash over the fact that there is a fundamental difference regarding consciousness that you are trying to conflate.
Lol. The science you don’t understand is gibberish ?? The authors word say plants are capable of cognitive function. Proof is provided, no amount of vegan denial will change the facts.
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:Wrong again. If we programmed an autonomous car with a variety of sensors so well that it could learn and form future avoidance behavior on it's own, it still wouldn't capture what we mean by experiencing pain.
Sure. Except in this case we didn’t program it, thus we are not cognizant of what mental states it possesses or not. If a car dropped from space that shows avoidance behavior, we cannot say it’s programmed behavior.
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:Which they dont, and the article that references McClintock certainly makes ZERO claim to this.
They make claim to cognitive abilities. Which satisfies the point.
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:I can certainly call you out on your lack of understanding if you continue to repeat yourself in making mistakes, posting misleading information.
You cant if you do t understand the science as you said.
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:Again, conflating descriptive processes with normative judgments.
First, that's a historical claim and second, one you havnt substantiated. Third, even if I play into this nonsense, what makes you think if there were to be an another extinction event that omnivores would fair better? So much missing information. LMAO. What a load of BS
The simple logic that in food scarcity scenario those who can digest the widest spectrum of food have highest survivsbility. Current extinction modelling predicts the same.
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:This is incoherent. What are you even trying to say
I have said it many times. A species has the right to exist as it is in evolved behavior. It’s ethical for a species to be what they are universally capable of and/or universally behave as. Your limited information based ethics cannot make natural reality unethical without divine invocation, period. Kant understood this, you don’t.
-
1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:
Again "you" not "we" - you don't speak for anyone but yourself.
I empathize equally to suffering. So that's your first mistake - assuming. There's a saying about that.
I can speak for my species when we have mass data, thank you very much. If you empathize equally with animals as human, that is clinically anomalous behavior and not empathy. You cannot empathize more with creatures you relate less with, as empathy is relatability. It’s another word you are looking for.
-
1
-
-
Just now, inane said:
lol your troll is impressive.
Says the greatest troll of all. I am flattered.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:
Do you not see humans as animals? why is being more capable = more valuable? capable at what? You could argue that we are less capable and evolved than the Octopus. Except that we can harvest and eat them.
On your scale of importance, would you put the plants at the bottom?
They seem least capable despite the Mustard plant hearing the Caterpiller.
Since humans are the most capable animals and lots of those humans perceive suffering and fear from other vertebrates. Could it be that you are denying our evolving intelligence?
I am denying the notion that confirmation bias based on instinct for species closer to us in relatability is a moral benchmark. It isn’t, it’s bias.
-
4 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Used to be when a man’s horse had more rights (value as property) than his wife.
Slaves didn’t have rights.
Times change. Animals should be treated respectfully, as should all living things.
Respectfully still means below a human. We empathize more with humans, humans offer us more value as beings and all species are biassed in favour of their own. All this means humans should give humans more rights than other species....which we do.
-
Just now, debluvscanucks said:
Just stop with this crap. Racism and huge divides are based on "my culture's better than yours". Honestly, enough.
It’s based on thinking your culture is the best. Not that your culture sucks at abc and mine at xyz.
-
4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:
False. Humans and animals like cows can suffer from PTSD because they have affective mental states. Plants do not have affective mental states no matter how much you try to mis lead people/dress it up. Avoidance behavior/reacting to external stimuli is not the same thing.
Exact same signal response overrides your mental state bias which is again a vertibral bias. You simp,y have no concept of what controls an experiment has.
4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Post your reference to PTSD in plants, go ahead now. Guaranteed that if you read closely there will be no terminology referencing phenomenal conscious experience.
Irrelvant. We care for a behavior. If a being behaves with empathy, jealousy and sadness, it’s behavior determines such action, aka output. Not what you think it’s brain is or isn’t or looks like.
4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as feeling or experiencing something. Try again.
Unless the cells themselves feel in these cases.
4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Its been shown time and time again you dont understand how to discern the material you reference. See above
You cannot be judge of this, because you do not understand the science I am citing. But it’s expected standard religious science denial from you. I just wrecked vegan morals.
4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Has a right eh? Well that's a normative judgement. Please justify said claim that "evolved behavior" is by default ethical. Is violence always ethical?
Since violence is not always a present behavior, it’s not always ethical. Violence can be ethical. Evolved behavior is ethical because a species has the right to be as is, which overrides one individuals view of what it should or shouldn’t be based on personal bias and limited info.
4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Lmao that's stretch. Inferior is a value laden judgement made up by YOU. Ill repeat, you are making things up now.
Inferior is a material judgement. We have decisive proof of the last three major extinction events being easiest on omnivores. Ergo, it’s superior diet.
4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Wrong again. Evolution is a process. A descriptive process. You saying what can and cant be immoral is a normative judgement. Like I said a couple posts back, you are conflating the two. That's an appeal to nature/ naturalistic fallacy.
Appeal to nature is superior morality than appeal to senses of one individual of one species amongst billions. Nature overrides you because you are limited. What exists in nature has a right to exist as is.
-
6 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
I don't care what it's "based on"...you did it. We all have our reasons. But yours aren't more valid than everyone else's.
Animals actually do have rights here....there are charges for animal cruelty based on them. So - wrong.
Animals have less rights than people. Difference is what you quoted, victims are people, what I quoted, you are just Messi g with people’s fun for what you think are animal victims.
-
6 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
People are animals they should have 'humane' rights and it's silly to argue they shouldn't.
If we one day develop a replicator like Star Trek for all our food would you support that?
This would take care of the plant rights you sorta champion.
Yep I would. But people deserve greater rights than animals because people are more capable and thus valuable than animals 1vs1 and every species is positively biased towards its own members, hence it’s justified.
-
1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:
I am not advocating for outlawing a behavior based on my anecdotal experience, as you alleged. I am asking for something to be outlawed where people are victims. Not cultural concepts of whether animals are victims or if they are, if we should care or not. People and animals don’t have the same right and it’s silly to argue they should.
-
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:
Again, it depends on what you mean by consciousness. Plants do not have phenomenal conscious experience. Big difference
They do because their responses say they do. End of story. PTSD is a phenomenal conscious experience and they show symptoms of it just like animals do, including entire bandwidth.
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Wrong. Not only do cows have a sensation of pain, that is, they can feel it, they also have an additional mental state of not liking such a sensation. You can not say that about plants. They have no subjective mental states. They are not individuals like any human or mammal. They feel nothing.
They do, hence they respond to pain just like cows do by seeking avoidance.
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:You are mis representing intelligent cellular behavior for something else. Big mistake
False. You are showing your vegan religious colours again. I’ve cited this multiple times and you’ve shown ignorance of this specific part of the debate multiple times. Disingenuous religious behavior yet again.
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Just wanted to point this out again. You dont even understand the very science you are citing
Again, how would you know ?? You are dodging this simple question: how do you judge if I understand signal processing or not, when you are illiterate on the topic yourself ??
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:All human conduct that relating to the rightness or wrongness of an action pertains to ethics.
And all human evolved behavior that pertains to basics of life, is by default ethical. A creature has right to continue it’s evolved basic existence.
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Um no, eating meat is not required for our continual survival. A plant based diet is safe for all ages.
Irrelevant. We digest meat better than we do plants. Plant based diet is also not required.
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:Second, that's a load of horse $&!# regarding "losing ability". Pure speculation. For all you know humans could thrive on a plant based diet as a society, and perhaps with enough time perhaps even evolve for all you know. That's a logical possibility. But Im not going to say that with any conviction because guess what, that would be pure speculation!
We have decisive evolutionary and biological proof of creatures losing abilities they do not use anymore. We may thrive, we may evolve with plant based diet, but if we stop eating meat, it’s matter of time before we cannot digest meat. Which would be decisively inferior outcome for our species as we are omnivores, which is superior survivsbility to either carnivore or herbivore diet. We again have decisive proof of this from fossil records.
16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:This is incoherent. You need to elaborate or clearly define what you are saying.
Evolution is just a descriptive mechanism. Humans have evolved by eating meat, but what we do now is still subject to ethics. Knowledge can change behaviors. But you seem to think mere evolution somehow places humans outside the sphere of morality. That doesnt make sense.
What is a creatures basic evolved response towards basic ingredients of life: food, sex, raising the young: they are by default ethical for that creature. For a creature has the right to exist as is, as evolved. What is evolved behavor cannot be immoral, when it’s species wide behavior. To say so, is to use Christianic original sin argument.
-
16 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:
That is just too funny ....
Canadians are famous all over the globe for tolerance ..
luckily i have had the good fortune to travel asia / europe / and africa. So i saw how canadians were perceived abroad
Undeserved reputation, since we are not very tolerant. You only tolerate what you don’t like.
-
10 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Tell that to the guy i witnessed abusing his dog a year ago ....
lets just say i tried to impose a few of my morals onto him ....
Sounds like u would have just walked by and pretended u did not see it happen ...
Depends on what the abuse was. My culture is far more into tolerance while yours is into moral crusading. That’s why your culture struggles so much opposing viewpoints.
-
8 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
More like zero morals and ethics crusade that u follow
Morals are for you to live by, not to impose on others. Especially when it comes to non human interactions.
-
51 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Wow is my only response .....
You are on fire today with your trolling. No one can actually think like your postings ...
Billions do. It’s called the non crusader mentality of ‘ If you don’t like it, don’t do it. But don’t stop others from doing it just coz you don’t like it’.
-
49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
It does impact me.
Lit does only if you partake.
49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:It's my right to decide, feel it, say it. If I feel someone is exploiting another, whether it be women, children, animals, it is my right ... no, my duty ... to intervene when/if I can. Whether those exploiting them like it or not.
So your feelings should get to control others behavior ? Slippery slope indeed. You don’t get to outlaw things for others just because you don’t like them. That’s imposition not tolerance.
49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:Live and let live? That's what I'm aiming for.
Then stop trying to tell others what they can or cannot do.
49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:And I'm already over it but, ftr:
Like marriage and families? Back to ignore.
Difference is, i am not advocating for outlawing any such behavior. I am pointing out what is wrong and if people listen, good. If they don’t, no big deal. It’s not my kids who are at risk or my marriage. You on the other hand, want to impose what you believe on others as a matter of law. Not live and let live at all. More like crusading against others choice.
-
31 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:
Sorry, but in practical terms it is very important. Based on neurophysiology, neuroscience (e.g. brain imaging) and observed behaviors we know many other animals are conscious in similar ways to us.
Sure. All it means is they are similar to us. Not that those who are not similar to us are less conscious.
QuoteThat a) confirms consciousness and b) is practically relevant for not only further scientific research but also has ethical implications.
Thats not confirmation of consciousness, that’s just confirmation of similarity to us. Consciousness is a behavior. Not organ response. Otherwise, a perfectly concious AI will not be concious for lacking organ response.
QuoteThe "guessing" part applies to human observation as well- I dont know exactly what it feels like for another to be in pain but we can reasonably guess, or make an informed decision based on observable behavior. That lack of certainty doesn't prevent in any fundamental way studying the phenomenal aspects of consciousness, but it DOES highlight the subjective nature of our mental lives.
It does prevent us from making any specific observations. All we know is cows don’t like to be burnt. Neither do plants. They both respond with defence mechanisms they are capable of. One being more like us in heir response nature doesn’t make them more concious.
Quote"Superior consciousness" is just a stupid value laden term made up by you,
No it isn’t. Otherwise a fish is just as concious as a cat, a mollusk is just as concious as us. Consciousness is a spectrum not a discrete function.
QuoteFor starters organ response or observed behavior is only one way of looking at consciousness, not the ONLY way.
Then your objections to plant consciousness is nulllified because your decisions on why they are not concious is organ response based.
QuoteSecond, signal detection doesn't tell you everything you think it does. It for starters doesnt explain/substantiate any sort of subjective, mental life. "Organized behavior" can be labeled very generally as conscious but again, nothing that indicates a subjective, mental life. Empirically speaking that's distinct and a substantive difference.
How would you know this ? Are your trained or trained or educated in signal analysis ? Do you know what constitutes a conscious signal output vs programmed response output ? Seems to me you are dismissing a sophisticated field of science because it doesn’t suit your view and yet you know virtually nothing of it.
QuoteThird, you are reaching so badly. You want so badly to right you are stretching the truth (again) which is misleading and quite frankly, not intelligent argument.
Nope. I am simply explaining the science behind the research to you. As far as I am concerned I don’t have to reach on anything. My premise was plants have consciousness and I have proven my premise with the highest burden of proof possible: citing the actual peer reviewed paper itself and not some magazine article.
QuoteTo a degree. It doesnt tell the whole story. Trying to argue plants "feel" pain like humans and animals feel pain is simply false even if observable behaviors mimic each other in some ways. Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as a subjective, conscious experience. Facts. You are not understanding the article you yourself cited.
That’s just your opinion and not science. You are again trying to judge a method-signal processing - which you yourself are completely ignorant of. This is called being disingenuous. In science, the observable data overrides hypothesis. Observable data shows us that PTSD response in mustard plant follows the exact same PTSD parameter of a traumatized goat. That fact overrides any ‘supposed to or not’ speculations.
QuoteNo, this is what is wrong with you. Like I just said, you stretch the truth of scientific findings which fundamentally goes against the conservative nature of science itself. Leaps in reasoning are not persuasive at all. And it muddles the very science you reference because the misinformation you spread smears the same science cited.
This is rich, considering you are self admittedly not in a position to understand and thus evaluate the science. Since you are not familiar with the science you are simply not in a position to extrapolate from the data given. Which is why it seems like stretching the truth.
QuoteRemember what I said about outlandish ethical claims?
For starters you've made a poor argument:
While it may be true that humans have evolved eating meat, that fact doesn't require us to continue on this way, or make it ethically permissible to do so.
Irrelevant. How we have evolved, by default is ethical as it’s illogical to say an evolutionary process sans divine judgement is unethical. There is no basis to the idea that an evolved idea is unethical, unless you wish to contend that you know better than evolutionary response....it presupposes that a species is fundamentally flawed or wrong, which is effectively an original sin argument: something that even atheist western philosophies are infected by due to the Christian base of the society.
QuoteHow humans have evolved is a natural fact. What is good or immoral is value laden, which requires normative justification. If self sustenance is the point at issue, then your argument falls apart because guess what, plant based diets will sustain you and is safe for humans of all ages.
The justification isn’t self sustainance, the justification is two fold: an evolved species wide response cannot be unethical as any evolved response in nature,by default, is ethical for said creature. For two, it’s survival justification. We have decisive proof that omnivory is decisively superior evolution response than either obligate carnivore or herbivore diet. We also have decisive proof that species lose ability over somethign when they give up on that something. Ergo, long term veganism is decisively inferior evolutionary step for our species and evolutinary regression. Ergo unsupportable.
QuoteAnd more importantly, you are wrongly assuming that because of evolution, we should desire to continue on in such a way. That's unjustified. It would be like saying GMO food should be undesired because it is 'un natural'. Also, wrong.
Evolution does not require justification. What is, is. Existence by default is the dominant position over what can or may exist. Technically GMO is not unnatural, it’s sped up cross breeding in evolutionary timeframes. GMO foods also exist to serve a purpose, not advocated as replacement of the natural species. Which is exactly what GMO regulations exist to address. But veganism pretends to supplant what naturally exists. Ergo, bad analogy.
QuoteAlso, Im not talking about animals, they are not subject to moral principles and obligations like adult, rational humans are before you go and make another mistake.
So that's a poor argument, ethically speaking. Like I said, you dont get it.
I do get it. What I get is, you think your ideas are better than the response we have evolved. Which is laughable and nothing more than original sin argument. A species’ universal response towards the basic behavior of life, as defined by food, mating and child raising habits are by default ethical for that species. It’s ethical for an omnivore to eat omnivore diet, it’s ethical for a species that kicks out its newborn to struggle on their own to do so, it’s ethical for ducks to procreate by raping each other. The fundamental basis of ethics is not imposing arbitrary values over those that are proven, tried and tested evolutionary response.
it is ethically permissible for any species to behave in the way they have evolved to behave. Arguing otherwise is end game argument of original sin or ‘fallen’ or ‘always flawed’ nature, all of which require a divine agency to override evolved response. If you are into divinity, that’s consistent rationale. If you are not, then it’s logically inconsistent and egoistic to think you know better than evolutionary response, when science is still uncovering reasons for said evolved behavior.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
Because I live in a society that allows me to voice my opinion and opposition to something I'd like to see changed.
But WHY would you want something changed that others don’t agree with you on and which doesn’t impact you or them ?? That’s my question. Why do you think it’s right to get something banned for others, when there isn’t a decisive agreement on whether it has a victim or not in the first place. Isn’t that seeking to impose your opinions on others ??
QuoteMy culture is caring, compassion, empathy. I believe Canada to be rooted in those very things.
Sure. But many don’t see its uncaring to tie a horse to a wagon and get it prancing around or jump hurdles on its back. If you do, great. Don’t partake. But why do you think it’s right for you to try and impose your views on such personal concepts like compassion, caring etc. On others ?? Live and let live. Not crusade for what you think right.
-
47 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
And that's reason to continue with something? Because much worse things are happening elsewhere? It's all the more reason to lead the charge in my view. Be the change you want to see happen stuff. Lead the way by setting standards.
Countries older than Canada & the US have done a lot of things that are much worse. So do we ignore all of it? Or just the stuff that suits our agenda? Thank God we do intervene and don't accept that "they're not close to ending" practices that are shown to be cruel and inhumane. Maybe they should be (close to ending)? Will be, if we do call it out and don't accept it here.Except for one or two specific instances, like spearing bulls or wrestling them, people do not all think it’s cruel or inhumane. So why should you get to change everyone’s culture because of your opinion on cruelty or inhumanity? You don’t like it, don’t partake in it. But if others think it’s not cruel, let them continue.
-
2 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:
You see, this sums you up in a nutshell.
You have compared human consciousness to plant 'consciousness', or have you already forgotten?
Nope, never. I have simply maintained our unique and incomparable position in consciousness to any other known lifeform on a purely cognitive comparability basis. This is not a ‘ first amongst equals’ line of reasoning, it’s ‘species x cannot compare its consciousness to any other species on the basis of lacking conclusive communication TO species studies consciousness to ever say with decisive confirmation the nature of consciousness’.
in simple terms, we cannot say for certain if burning a goat makes the goat feel burning the same way we do or if it’s a stabbing pain. We guess on that count and it’s largely a practically irrelevant point to any but the issue of confirmatory consciousness.
QuoteI argued quite clearly that the mental life humans and animals have are distinctly different than any type of broad, very general functionalist account of plant 'consciousness'.
And your argument was summarily dismissed due to lacking a basic form of scientific control. You cannot cite superior consciousness based on organs response, when consciousness itself is not tied to those organ responses. Ie, you cannot use ‘ it twitches it’s eyes and looks at me lovingly when pet’ to compare consciousness response with a being LACKING EYES as a physiology.
The only rational scientific control, as mentioned in the article and which you are completely unable to grasp, is evaluation of consciousness on the basis of signal response analysis. Ie, if the responses it is capable of, is showing organized, conscious thought pattern, then that and that alone is the basis of consciousness appraisal. On this facet, plants show remarkable conscious response. So much so that cutting edge research is linking it with a remarkable synaptic mimicry facilitates by a complex network of roots and fungi on the roots. Clearly, you have zilch comprehension of the scientific discussion on consciousness and are simply stuck in the confirmatory bias of ‘ no eyes, no twitch, no, salivation,no locomotion equals no consciousness’.
QuoteThe paper you cited supports this claim because it made no reference to it either- guess what: there are no grounds for doing so. Instead, they looked as a very broad, functional account of plant consciousness which I outlined to you.
You are mistaken. The paper said what I said above. It won’t give you the answer you seek because a being like a plant cannot show the same ‘ oh $&!# swish away to bad stuff or release perfume bomb to animal that is saying loving things’ because it is not thst sort of lifeform.
consciousness requires a species wide control. The only control, as the article state, barring direct communication , is signal response analysis. Aka McKlintock’s smart cell. As I said, please science more.
QuoteYou simply dismissed this distinction as unscientific and went on and on about how there really is no substantive difference.
See above. I am dismissing your objections to a scientific peer reviewed paper on plant intelligence because your objections stem mostly from lack of basic scientific education on how to set up controls to a said experiment. Clearly, you have never researched a serious scientific project akin to a thesis defence or self directed grad studies in pure sciences. In such, you become very familiar with the concepts of controls to an experiment that makes the experiment scientifically valid.
QuoteHilarious given the amount of research and focus on the subjective/phenomenal aspect of consciousness in neuroscience. Instead, you deemed both types of consciousness as comparable for all intents and purposes based on a very vague and therefore weak justification of signal theory yadda yadda yadda. This is not bias. This is empirically justified given neurophysiology. Not interested in getting into that nonsense again.
Neurophysiology of intelligence is limited by mathematical constrains to beings possessing neurons. It’s inapplicable to machine learning, never mind other beings. Signal theory isn’t yadda yadda, it’s the universal benchmark of discerning if output is intelligent, self aware, repeater, random noise, etc. It’s data analysis that you clearly have no idea, is the most sophisticated benchmark in and of itself of consciousness of lack of, of a signal. Again, just because you are ignorant of those scientific concepts, doesn’t mean your two bit memorization of a few philosophy courses is overriding to the scientific reality.
QuoteSecond, you just dont get it. Your ability to reason and critically look at information is weak. You make very outlandish ethical claims which could be avoided if you thought about them first.
You seem so, because you are simply not familiar or strong enough in mathematics to represent reasoning mathematically and verify. Hence you are stuck in the ‘ memorized theories and intuitive loop’ of thinking. It’s okay, I hurt your feelings by citing peer reviewed paper that’s two years old on plant intelligence. It wrecks your vegan religion, so it’s no different than science denial of religious people. I get it.
QuoteFirst, cows have mental states of pain, and also additional mental states of not wanting to be in a state of pain. Second, plants do not have mental states, whatsoever, because mental states require a brain.
Conciosness or lack of it, is based on displayed response. Source of displayed response, as in AI does not need to be a brain or CPU. distributed signal processing is older than CPU tech btw.
QuoteSo there is such a rational basis for saying animals suffer more than plants.
Nope. See above. It’s observers bias using observers physiological parameters that’s not valid to non veribral consciousness.
QuoteIn fact, there is no basis for saying plants "suffer" because there is no basis for stating plants have a mental life comparable to that of humans and animals . You can't say plants feel anything. You CAN state they react to external stimuli. Big difference.
If your signal response matches to PTSD, you got PTSD. Same stimuli pattern customized to species yields PTSD. Whether it’s human, cow or mustard plant.
Quotelso, we empathize with other humans and animals in moments of distress BECAUSE we have REASON to. We know this based on how we experience the world- its one way of how we relate to others.
Reason to is not because we know how it percieves the world. But because it’s similar enough to us for us to make observational guesses that make sense to us. 3 year olds get upset equally when their pet fish or cat get distressed, not more so for the cat because it’s way smarter and cognitive, but because both have eyes, skin, ears, howl, etc. A cat in pain shows far more relatable benchmarks of pain than a fish. Yet my daughter mourned their deaths the same as a kid of 4. This is the basis of empathy: like life forms. Not nonsense about consciousness or ability to feel. If that’s the case people with crazy parents would empathize more with empathy than their parents. Yet they don’t. Empathy is based on your ability to relate to a life on instinct, not a rational decision based on complexity of the lifeform.
QuoteLike Ive said before, no point in going in circles with someone who is un reasonable, untruthful and misleading. Cant have a rational discussion with this type of person. Enjoy yelling at clouds
You are just mad because I cited science, told you the science and you don’t get the science and get lost in the science stated. It’s ok. This isn’t about you only. This is expose of vegan nonsense for others.
PS: I see you pretty rapidly dropped the whole optimal eco friendly ness of veganism vs optimized omnivory. I guess you found out the data and math to that is pretty elementary once you look up the nitrification of manure vs compost....
PPS: arguing that it’s immoral for a species to eat something that it biologically evolved to eat, without a divine writ against said diet, is a remarkable logical own-goal in itself. If there is no God, it cannot be morally wrong for any creature, including us, to exist in its most fundamental form of life, which is self sustainance. Ergo, it cannot be immoral for an evolving lifeform to eat something that it has evolved eating, on a moral basis alone. That’s pretty much saying your ideology is directly superior to objective material evidence. But that’s a whole another gamut of ethics.
-
Just now, bishopshodan said:
I am agreeing .
I don't want to have something I can relate to suffer. It is biased.
I feel bad for the carrots. Not as bad as I feel for the Pigs.
I still eat carrots, I have to eat something.
When they develop a pill for my nutrients. I'm in.
But why pill ? What’s wrong with suffering done to food ?? Billions of species do it every day ,the bulk majority of life does it. That is the most objective benchmark of it being perfectly natural to suffer if you are food to something. Maybe it’s a consequence of being brought up in the artificiality of western supermarket lifestyle, where you don’t get to interact with your food from its living state to its death. I am thankful my kids grew up picking the chicken they want, live and seeing it butchered in front of them, as is natural for our species since time immemorial. Maybe this is why this whole laughable ethics of slaughter mentality is seen amongst people who grow up the supermarket only lifestyle.
-
3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
I was just talking about that this morning in another thread.
Now your with me.
Yep pain, fear... emotion, communication etc
yep.
relatabilty.
So because we relate to something more, it doesn’t make our responses ethicsl towards them. It makes it more biassed, that’s all. Sorry if it’s repeating myself but your post was a lil bit too short for me to fully grasp if you were agreeing or not.
Plants show pain, fear etc responses too. We just don’t relate to it intuitively because they do not have hairs that stand up, eyes that go wide in shock or vocal cords that emit frequency of sound we interpret as distress. We relate more to animals and value animal suffering more not because we have evidence that animals feel more than plants ( the evidence shows that plants also feel though it’s hard to quantify which species or individual life form feels stimuli x more), but because we relate to their organ structure of eyes ears tongues etc more than species which lack all these organs.
-
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:Like Ive said before, I'm not going to discuss a topic with a guy who doesn't understand simple reasoning based on facts. To think plant consciousness is equivalent or closely similar to the mental lives of non human animals and humans based on scientific research you can't seem to grasp/understand important factual differences is absurd. You couldn't even grasp what conditional reasoning entails so let that sink in.
I never for one instance said plant consciousness is comparable to humans. For the simple reason that no other species can be objectively compared to ours as we lack the basic means of communication.
As for plants vs animals , I have cited actual biologists and their papers. It came as a shock to me too, but unlike you, years of science training and experience has taught me to defer to the findings and statements of scientific authorities in the field, even if it’s counter intuitive.
I realize that plant cognition is counter intuitive. Many things in science are. Such as the moon drifting away from our planet and not coming closer to it ( as any standard gravitational analysis predicts). This is why you are struggling to accept this basic fact because this counter intuitive idea is also influenced by your cognitive bias towards life forms more similar to you (animals).
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:ISecond, you missed the point regarding the persuasiveness of animal suffering. It's called empathy and rational assent based on evidence people may not be aware of. Not surprised you went off on your own tangent though.
There is no rational basis to conclude that a cow recoiling from a fire is suffering more than a plant emitting stress symptoms from fire. Empathy is irrelevant to ethics and is actually unethical in an ethical comparison, since empathy is fundamentally a case of bias. This is why we are more empathetic to the emotions of our children than a random stranger.
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:Waste cellulose eh? Whatever that is, does it magically grow and not require other resources like water and land to grow?
?? This makes no sense. Animal poop is more fertilizing than direct plant matter. It means it’s more ecologically friendly to have an animal eat the husks of corn, eat the animal and use its poop for fertilizer, than use the husks directly as fertilizer. It’s mathematically provable.
Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:It's not rocket science pal. When you account for the total amount of resources to raise animals in concentrated feed operations, then compare the calories you get from eating said animals, the equation is significantly in efficient. If CAFO's in "Asia" are so different I wouldn't be surprised, but then again so are their animal protection/welfare laws, not that North America or Europe are pillars of Justice on this front either. The way you describe it I'd be even more wary of eating animals exploited in Asia.
I'm not even going to get into the question marks of whatever this waste cellulose is that you think is OK for animals to eat.
Continue on with your vendetta however.
Waste cellulose is any and all plant matter that herbivores can digest but we cannot. Husks,stalks, barks, leaves etc. Unlike you, I am not the kind to pass off my cognitive bias towards animals as some ethical consideration. All life is sacred and all things kill life forms to live, except for those species that eat rocks or amino acids directly. And this POV of all life being sacred, with plant life and animal life on equal footing is not just some vendetta, there are millions of people who live by this motto. They are called Jains, who have been practicing their non violence ethics for 2500 years longer than these new age vegans. The only difference between them and me, is I consider it part of the natural cycle to eat anything I am capable of digesting without presenting a biological threat to me. But carry on with your cognitive bias and newfound ideology of Veganism. It’s ethics are objectively inferior to those of the Jain ethics regarding nonviolence as well as being an immature ideology, since it hasn’t been around long enough to iron out its kinks.
-
3 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:
Im not one for being pushy or putting people down (unless they acting adversarial as well) to try and persuade people. At the same time you have to stand up for what you believe in so I get that side of it too.
I do wonder if people followed advocacy groups like:
https://twitter.com/DxEverywhere?s=17and saw the rampant abuse in the industry, whether, they might re consider their actions over time.
Cognitive bias is not an argument for anything but cognitive bias. It’s not an argument for more or less suffering. We cannot prove that cows suffer more than mollusks or clams and if clams suffer more than corn. What we can prove is all life forms take defensive and avoidance measures toward painful experiences, thresholds of which varies from species to species.
Time for the Calgary Stampede to Evolve... ?
in Off-Topic General
Posted
Yes.