Because cows eat bushes and moss? Cows live in the tundra?

My point is you didn't make your point clear in the slightest. Obviously there are some animals like yaks that can live in the tundra as it is their natural territory, but not cows, which is what I was talking about.

"More feasible [for humans]"

Stop being dicks to each other, it really isn't that hard to play nice with the other kiddies. Obviously the total caloric consumption of the system might be less if everyone ate plants, but the ratio of total caloric expenditure to caloric consumption for humans can easily be lower by killing animals and eating them.

Edit:

@EzDay
The point of my post was that I get annoyed when people can't deal with topics appropriately, you included. You tried to break down the issue into some sort of non-sensical pseudo-philosophical b.s. that isn't necessary at all for this topic. You want an objective measure to value human ethics over animal ethics? For something to be objective, an object must be chosen to measure against. If an object is chosen, that means the object is subject to the chooser, so the "objective measure" is actually "subjective" to whoever chooses the object. It's all pseudo-philosophy, nonsense, useless semantics that distract people from thinking about an issue in any sort of productive manner and I hate it. "This whole thread is pointless" well then don't post! Life is pointless when you bring your pointless nonsense into play, so its pointless to bring it up!

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 6 2012, 4:04 am by Vrael.

To avoid confusion, perhaps we should use the term "moral" to describe the things we ought to do, before this circles down to, "well I thought you were talking about meta ethics, not normative ethics".

Well, I get my morals from the Bible, the Bible says it's good to eat meat so I do.

If you're an evolutionist and consider animals to be your brothers in some way then perhaps you shouldn't eat meat. Then again, plants would also be your evolutionary brothers.

Lets look at an official definition:
The experience part seems to imply what Sac said, that you need a CNS.
The aversion part is probably what ray is talking about, but I'd say that harmful stimulus isn't "shown" by the plant (what do you mean anyway?) to express its aversion, but whatever you can observe is probably just the physical and/or chemical result of the harmful stimulus.

I like how you know more than actual biologists about their own field. I've tried explaining this to you before, linked you to appropriate research, and you apparently still don't get what scientists have been saying for over a decade.

If it wasn't obvious, "pain" is a subjective experience, and so it is impossible to know if another organism is experiencing it, and in what way. It's hard for humans to compare pain to one another, and they're able to actually talk to each other about it.

The current measurement for pain is in seeing if an organism has reactions similar to those we exhibit. If your definition of "pain" is "has a negative reaction to negative stimuli that is equivalent to that of human beings," then that would be enough. Of course, it's not enough for those who work in the field and continue to research it, but it may very well be enough for you.

Even using that definition, there are already invertebrates that are believed to experience that definition of pain. In other words, organisms without a central nervous system. Your statement is already factually incorrect. That's not even taking into account the other invertebrates, who may simply experience pain in a different way than we do. Research is being done on this as we speak.

Furthermore, that definition of pain automatically excludes plants, because they are physically incapable of reacting the same way we do. Considering research showing that plants have the equivalent of a nervous system and even a brain, and that they have physiological reactions to injury in which they attempt to prevent themselves from dying, it is entirely possible they have a sensation equivalent to "pain" as well.

Why would anyone define pain as "just what human beings feel"? The only reason we do that is because we have no method of testing for other kinds of pain. The fact you have a different reason (ie, erroneously thinking a CNS is required to "feel anything") demonstrates that you should not be trying to act like an authority on the subject. The actual authorities have been pretty open with the way they test for pain and the possibility there are mechanisms in lower organisms which simulate a different kind of pain that they are yet unaware of.

On a fundamental level, plants react to injuries in much the same way animals do. They attempt to protect themselves, to stop themselves from dying, and sometimes even communicate with animals to do so. They've also been shown to possess memory and even to be able to perform calculations.

I'm consistently amused by how people with no background in plant biology, or any scientific field for that matter, have convinced themselves that plants cannot feel anything simply because they can't move or make noise. I'm certain if their reaction included running away and screaming, these kinds of people might actually be able to understand the world around them a bit more.

As far as the topic is concerned, it's okay to eat meat because we are designed to eat meat. All omnivores eat other animals. The only question should be in the practices we use to do so. I think that the idea of mass producing animals with no brains is not only ethical, but is the direction we should be moving toward. Perhaps it should even be considered for human beings, in which case we'd have an endless supply of blood and organs to keep the rest of us healthy and alive.

If ethical concerns would come into anything, I would think it'd be that. As long as they never have the capacity to think or feel, and they wouldn't have been conceived otherwise, then I don't see a problem with it myself.

You have a P.H.D. in Microbiology? Oh, you don't have one? I like how you know more than everyone on SEN and feel the need to mockingly ridicule others when they make simple mistakes. We're all human, and there are so many areas of knowledge that we can't possibly be fully informed on all of them, so please, cut us some slack.

You do realize in the next six or seven sentences of your post you talk about how we know other organisms might be experiencing pain? If you try and say something psuedo-philosophical like everyone reverts to "OMG DESCARTES ASSUME NOTHING THEREFORE WE CANT KNOW FOR SURE" I will probably take my brain out of my head and stuff it in a nuclear bomb and launch that nuclear bomb into the sun.

If you poke something with a stick and it cringes, we can be reasonably sure it felt something. Obviously there are more difficult situations to tell, but the point of bringing up the CNS is that its intrinsically tied to the human consciousness, and that the pain and suffering humans feel is in some way superior to what plants or other animals feel, by nature of our sentience. Causing animals pain may have some ethical implications, because they may have some similarities to us in terms of sentience and pain/suffering reception, like dolphins or chimpanzees or something, but the pain reception of plants is so drastically different and inferior that they are unworthy of the same consideration.

No, I don't, and so I didn't claim to know more than actual biologists about their own field.


If this is your opinion, then thank you. I've certainly never implied this myself, so I assume it must be.


Except a number of people attempted to explain this exact subject matter to him about a week ago. There's no excuse. He was fully aware he was wrong before making the post.


It isn't pseudo-philosophical. It isn't philosophical at all. It's a factual statement.

Also, since you're apparently unfamiliar with the works of Descartes, he was the one who revolutionized pain theory as we understand it today. He was the one who demystified it. He even specifically stated that animals do not feel pain equivalent to humans because they lack that level of awareness.


The argument that our pain is more significant than that of animals due to our sentience may be a valid argument. It's totally unrelated to having a central nervous system. If we had a different method of experiencing pain and the same means of understanding it, it wouldn't change anything about how the pain mechanisms in vertebrates work, although it almost certainly would have changed our ability to appreciate them.


I didn't say they should be given the same considerations, or any considerations for that matter. I only said that definitively stating you "need a CNS to feel anything", which is factually incorrect, and broadly dismissing the fact they may have the ability to feel anything equivalent to pain, is incredibly ignorant.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 6 2012, 9:10 pm by Azrael. Reason: Quote tag.

Because "go forth and multiply" has worked out so well for the earth in general, eh?

If you missed my point: the bible might say it is moral to eat meat, but it doesn't say you should raise chickens in factory farms, self-select turkeys so they're force-fed mutants incapable of living normal lives and lock pigs up in sow crates to increase production and lower prices etc.

Even if you have permission from God to eat meat, that doesn't mean the way it is carried out by modern society is moral or ethical.

Azrael, my point has little to do with the factual accuracy of your post, or Sacrieur's post, or anyone's post. I want people, you included, to stop taking a topic and turning it into some petty quarrel over who has the better credentials and who is better at mocking someone else. If someone makes a mistake, you can help them learn without ridiculing them.

It is not my opinion, my quote was an example of mocking parallel to what you yourself posted. I was hoping to illustrate what you do by mocking your presumptive nature just as you were mocking Sacrieur. I'm confident that you know very well that it was not an opinion from the nature of your "justification" of your "assumption."
Do you see how the third quote is just another example of your mocking? You aren't teaching him, you're smashing "YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT" down his throat. You presume to know not only more than him, but that you know you know more than him. You're assuming he's too stupid to get what you know to be "obviously" correct, which is a terrible assumption to make in any discussion. You're not the only one who does this.
So now, not only do you presume to know more and better than him, you presume to be psychic and know what HE knows? Do you see how you've woven in this sort of mocking-superiority-complex-stuff into your whole post?

"Pain is" is a factual statement about the existence of pain, yes. "Pain is a subjective experience" is a nonsense statement, because you haven't elaborated on what a subjective experience is. You, among every other person on SEN it seems, throw around the terms "subjective" and "objective" like they are magic power words which magically make whatever you say meaningful. I hate this, because the nature of "subjective" and "objective" are not that way. Subjective standards are subject to something; they are standards measured relative to some scale which has freedom in some regard. Objective standards are fixed relative to some object or goal which does not change. If you don't define the standard or scale, then just saying something is "subjective" or "objective" is little more than claiming "we should use a relative scale" or "we should use a fixed scale" to measure the value of this thing. In the case of pain, we measure its "intensity" relative to our prior experiences with pain, like "sticking a nail in my foot hurt worse than the bruise I got while playing baseball", on a "subjective" scale. We can just as easily measure it on an "objective" scale by measuring the number of neurons which fire off for a given action in a given body. In both cases I have defined the scale, making the statement meaningful.

Yet another example of your insistence on mocking whoever you're speaking with. I was the one who brought him up, therefore I must have some familiarity with him and works, yet you insist I am unfamiliar with them and go on to "educate" me. I hate when people do this, not just to me, but in general.
The reason I brought him up was in anticipation of an argument which I also hate which is far too common in these sorts of discussions. People will often bring up his sort of argument for knowledge except for "I exist" being impossible, and then go on to say crap like "well we can't REALLY know these animals have pain" which is inappropriate and way beyond the scope of the discussion.

Sure, it's incorrect, I'm not worried about that. I'm concerned with the way you called him out, by mocking and ridicule and claims of ignorance. Mocking and ridiculing him over a point which isn't even that important in the scheme of the discussion.

Lanthanide, I am happy that you do appear to be more concerned with the discussion than with ridiculing people. Mad props.

I don't think he's stupid at all. The only factor that was involved is that he has demonstrated in the past a total and purposeful unwillingness to accept his held assumptions are inaccurate when it is proven otherwise, to the point of having hours of explanation which is more akin to arguing, only to reject all factual information at the end of it. DTBK even had to involve himself one time because he refused to accept a simple statement of fact.

Not that I think your conversational tangent is relevant to this discussion in any way whatsoever.


Multiple people tell someone something factual, and explain it to them in detail. It can then be said they know that person knows it. There's nothing remotely psychic involved. You're being simply ridiculous at this point.


The scientific explanation as to why the mechanics and extent of pain and pain-like sensations in anything besides vertebrates is not fully understood is literally because "pain is a subjective experience" which we can only measure via observing a similarity to reactions we ourselves exhibit.

If you think "pain is a subjective experience" is a "nonsense statement" then you simply don't understand what subjective means. It seems to me you think it is a purely philosophical term, which of course it is not. The way I used it had no philosophical implications whatsoever, and was entirely accurate and factual.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

The statement was: "If it wasn't obvious, "pain" is a subjective experience, and so it is impossible to know if another organism is experiencing it, and in what way. It's hard for humans to compare pain to one another, and they're able to actually talk to each other about it."

Translation: "If it wasn't obvious, "pain" is an experience only felt by the subject experiencing it, and so it is impossible to know if another organism is experiencing it, and in what way. It's hard for humans to compare pain to one another, and they're able to actually talk to each other about it."

Of course, this definition should have been itself obvious since the next six paragraphs after it describe it in detail. However, if you have any further problems understanding the meaning of any words, feel free to PM me about it instead of making a post. I'll be more than happy to oblige.


False. I use them when appropriate, as all words should be used. See the above definition.

Also, I am not every other member of SEN. It seems more like you're using this thread as a platform to criticize every method of conveying a point that you personally dislike, and are going as far as finding fault where there is none just to do so.


It simply seemed to be the case, based off factual information. Are you to say that you were aware of his works, including those regarding pain theory? Your post suggested that you were not. I in no way intended to mock you, but to simply share information with you which it seemed you were lacking.


This is an example of what I meant, because Descartes was one of the first people who stated that animals can't feel pain.

Lanthanide, I am happy that you do appear to be more concerned with the discussion than with criticizing people. Your posts are both well-constructed and relevant to the actual topic in some way. Mad props.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 6 2012, 11:29 pm by Azrael. Reason: Typo.

The Bible also says that we should be responsible with what God gives us. It says we should take care of our animals. It even says that when a cow is threshing corn you shouldn't muzzle it to prevent it eating the corn. It also condemns greed. So certainly some of the methods used to farm animals are immoral and should be condemned by Christians. Having said that, again it is not wrong for us to eat animals, just that we mustn't be cruel to animals.

It is interesting to note that a quick google of "flavour of factory chickens" suggests that people unanimously agree that factory chicken tastes worse than free run chicken. I don't know enough of the relevant biology to know whether that's because of stress hormones, chemicals, or what, however.

Fair enough. So do you only eat organic farm-raised meat then? Or are you a bad christian?

It is often said that free-range eggs 'taste better'. But I'm unaware of any double-blind studies that back this up. If anyone can find one I'd be interested.

That was a good post Azrael. I don't find anything mocking in it at all.

(except the very end, but that's excusable because it's not really part of the main post)

I think it's weird that people treat the idea of ethics to be some concrete doctrine of reality. It's impossible to say that one thing is definitively unethical unless you use something like a command from God as a point of reference...

Really we have no reason to abide by any sort of ethics at all. Ethics could be summarized as a social contract to "not be a dick to each other."

I find ethical debates silly.

Edit: I'm not sure if I believe that^

....

So you went after 3 users specifically because you believed they would possibly bring up what you considered an "inappropriate" argument? I find that insulting. I understand why you might be upset (knowing a little more about descartes now and the dumb arguments you could make) but that is by no means an acceptable thing to do. Don't attack me until I make a shitty argument, not before the fact, because maybe I won't make a shitty argument at all! And before you can pull out of your ass "oh TiKels that wasn't directed at just you"... you quoted me directly. You singled me out among a few to do this, and I find it reprehensible and hypocritical that you would do as such, considering the context of the above quote.

Fuck my writing sucks.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 7 2012, 1:47 am by TiKels.

Interesting question raised. I don't think it would be wrong to eat the food made in such a way, but it would be immoral to farm chickens in a factory if the conditions are in fact cruel. If I was personally running such a factory then I would be a "bad Christian", but buying and eating something from that factory is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, Sanitarium is a Seventh Day Adventist-owned company; am I being a bad Christian because I eat weetbix? I mean, I'm supporting a company run by a cult. Having said that, I would prefer to eat farm raised meat as a "vote-with-my-wallet" point. I'm not sure whether the meat I eat is organic farm raised meat, as I don't buy it myself.

Hopefully that made a bit of sense.

Dat ad hominem...

On a related note, I can personally affirm that organic milk tastes better than non-organic milk. I don't really care if the cows are treated any better, I'd rather just use my dollars to purchase the best tasting animal products at the lowest price. Once again, because humans are designed* to eat meat, we should eat meat. Any counter-arguments?

*Pre-emptive argument: Opponents might say that human arms have the capacity to throw rocks at people, but that doesn't mean we should throw rocks at people. The difference is that the digestive system is specifically designed to extract nutrients from plant and animal sources.

So essentially you're saying as long as you're not committing the sin first-hand, it doesn't count? If you're knowingly supporting people that go against God's word, he'll look the other way because He knows you're just doing it because it's convenient (or you really like the taste of those heathen-bix)?

It's quite probable that this has nothing to do with what the cows are actually eating or how they live; most cows in New Zealand would probably be considered 'free-range' by American standards.

More likely it's simply the lack of processing that has been applied to the milk. We used to have a milkman at my parents house up until about 1998 or so (probably one of the last in the country) that sold milk by the bottle. One thing they sold was whole milk which came with silver caps on the bottle. There is no equivalent to this with milk that you buy from our supermarkets that come in the plastic bottles: the closest is blue-top milk. The difference is blue-top milk had been homogenized, eg the fat in the milk had been evenly distributed throughout and is of a constant consistency (excess fat is removed from the raw milk, or additional fat added if a particular batch is low). Whole milk on the other hand didn't have that processing and on average it was much creamier than the blue cap stuff you get in the supermarket today.

It is likely that whatever "organic" milk your buying simply hasn't been processed as much as other milk. But you could still get exactly the same results from "factory raised" cows if their milk wasn't processed as much, either.

Not at all; I'm buying a product from a company; every company, Christian or not, has got bad people who work at them; does this mean I should not buy anything from any company?

Muslims and Jews obey the halal and kosher laws. I guess you just find it too inconvenient to only eat meat the fits the values described in the bible? Sure they're not as clear-cut as halal and kosher, but they're still there.