-49 pts ยท October 26, 2014
I think that it is fair to say that love means very little to you when you are willing to kill others that are capable of experiencing it.
You think that it's okay to kill an animal that is capable of experiencing love, and you are not concerned with the environmental aspects.
I've actually given you a lot of relevant information, but it's true, you don't care and love, joy, and consciousness mean nothing to you.
So I'm effectively killing less plants and animals.
Well as it turns out, despite that you're making believe that you're a plant-rights activist, I use far less than an omnivore does.
Evolution produces a variety of components which perform complex operations without a conscious operator.
You just keep getting sillier. Suddenly you're accusing me of believing in ID. Time to end this game. Goodbye.
You could use those teeth for many reasons- I'm not trying to deny you your abilities, I'm appealing to your reason.
The difference is a computer built to detect sounds versus a consciousness interpreting sounds.
Gorillas and hippopotamus have pointy teeth, and deer have antlers.
Suffering isn't the only factor concerning morality, but so is death, and theft, slavery and rape, etc. It is about conscious will as well.
It does generally permit eating shellfish, except when they are mass harvested resulting in bycatch.
There is an alternate explanation which is supported by science, which is that the plants react to the particular sounds made by the bugs.
The fact is that sapience is why morality exists, and thus morality is concerned.
This is where sentience does factor into morality- with sentience suffering is possible, however not conscious suffering.
That's a reaction to stimulus and is not directly indicative of conscious awareness.
Sorry- when I said, "I'm sure, in some situations." I wasn't responding to the idea that plants are aware. They are not.
But no- plants are not aware. They are merely reacting according to their genes.
The Jains place plants on a hierarchy of life, however, they eat plants because they recognize their same passion for life in other animals.
I'm sure, in some situations, however, plants are not conscious and do not experience joy. Animals emotions are not dissimilar from ours.
Sentience presumably has some bearing on morality too, however it is such an oversight to claim that plants and animals are equal.
Sapience, as in the ability to think and act on knowledge, presumably gained from sentience, the ability to perceive and feel.
Humans have been preying on each other all throughout time, and in the modern day humans are desecrating the planet.
How do you define the value of life at all, if not for sapience? Is morality defined by the extent of power and desire?
Gorillas. Hippopotamus. Humans most likely used to be able to break down cellulose. We don't need to.
Their numbers would dwindle, sure, but isn't to say that they can't survive in the wild or that nobody cares about their safety.
Plants are not actually sapient, they react to stimulation in a linear manner.
OP ate the ribs of a pig this morning with the period of a hen. "Respect for all."
Is somebody going to let this person know what happens to the animals that they choose to eat?
Hey- legit advice. Don't get hasty. Find a relationship where things can build up, gain some trust. Get to know each other. You can do that.
I think that it is fair to say that love means very little to you when you are willing to kill others that are capable of experiencing it.
You think that it's okay to kill an animal that is capable of experiencing love, and you are not concerned with the environmental aspects.
I've actually given you a lot of relevant information, but it's true, you don't care and love, joy, and consciousness mean nothing to you.
So I'm effectively killing less plants and animals.
Well as it turns out, despite that you're making believe that you're a plant-rights activist, I use far less than an omnivore does.
Evolution produces a variety of components which perform complex operations without a conscious operator.
You just keep getting sillier. Suddenly you're accusing me of believing in ID. Time to end this game. Goodbye.
You could use those teeth for many reasons- I'm not trying to deny you your abilities, I'm appealing to your reason.
The difference is a computer built to detect sounds versus a consciousness interpreting sounds.
Gorillas and hippopotamus have pointy teeth, and deer have antlers.
Suffering isn't the only factor concerning morality, but so is death, and theft, slavery and rape, etc. It is about conscious will as well.
It does generally permit eating shellfish, except when they are mass harvested resulting in bycatch.
There is an alternate explanation which is supported by science, which is that the plants react to the particular sounds made by the bugs.
The fact is that sapience is why morality exists, and thus morality is concerned.
This is where sentience does factor into morality- with sentience suffering is possible, however not conscious suffering.
That's a reaction to stimulus and is not directly indicative of conscious awareness.
Sorry- when I said, "I'm sure, in some situations." I wasn't responding to the idea that plants are aware. They are not.
But no- plants are not aware. They are merely reacting according to their genes.
The Jains place plants on a hierarchy of life, however, they eat plants because they recognize their same passion for life in other animals.
I'm sure, in some situations, however, plants are not conscious and do not experience joy. Animals emotions are not dissimilar from ours.
Sentience presumably has some bearing on morality too, however it is such an oversight to claim that plants and animals are equal.
Sapience, as in the ability to think and act on knowledge, presumably gained from sentience, the ability to perceive and feel.
Humans have been preying on each other all throughout time, and in the modern day humans are desecrating the planet.
How do you define the value of life at all, if not for sapience? Is morality defined by the extent of power and desire?
Gorillas. Hippopotamus. Humans most likely used to be able to break down cellulose. We don't need to.
Their numbers would dwindle, sure, but isn't to say that they can't survive in the wild or that nobody cares about their safety.
Plants are not actually sapient, they react to stimulation in a linear manner.
OP ate the ribs of a pig this morning with the period of a hen. "Respect for all."
Is somebody going to let this person know what happens to the animals that they choose to eat?
Hey- legit advice. Don't get hasty. Find a relationship where things can build up, gain some trust. Get to know each other. You can do that.