Ok forget about the vegans, bunch of preachy, sanctimonious, self-centered assholes every single one. Do you, as a non-hypocritical person with certain principles, think the exploitation of sentient beings is unethical and should be boycotted?
No- I know what you’re trying to go for, because it’s the same argument every Vegan thinks is their coup de grace. I, as a thinking person, am able to kill and use other animals to eat, for clothing, for protection, or for whatever else I need. I do not believe it is more or less moral to be vegan than it is to eat meat or use animal products. Are you able to prove that the plants you “exploit” aren’t sentient? No. Because sentience and life are not easily defined terms. Anyways, have a good rest of your life.
it is but it’s such a tedious point to argue I’m just not gonna. If you truly believe that plants are sentient and that picking a salad is the same as slaughtering a newborn (and lets be real here, you don’t) then you should still go vegan to minimize death of sentient life. Or starve, either way is fine by me.
It is within the context of this conversation. Words can change their meaning depending on context and no one definition will hold true always. If you actually cared about the topic within the context of a formal debate you would have challenged the other person for asserting a claim and then asking for proof of the contrary. But you’re just a pedant.
the other person seems to have been making the same point that I am, and in pointing out that what you provided is not proof to the contrary, I am engaging in the discussion at the same level.
try not lying about whether you’re providing proof.
No they haven’t, they asserted that it is no less moral to eat meat than to be vegan. In the case that animals are sentient but plants are not, clearly eating only plants is the more moral choice. Therefore a necessary condition for their assertion is that both animals and plants are not sentient or that both are. Their call for proof that plants aren’t sentient suggests that they meant the latter.
Since they made an assertion requiring the assumption that plants are sentient and then asked for proof that they are not, my statement that they made a claim and asked proof of the contrary is correct. Which is different from the statement you made, that my proof is not actually one.
I’m not engaging with this 🤓👆-ass bullshit further. We are supposed to make these formally correct arguments in a polite and restrained manner while the bloodmouths make snide remarks and jokes, the stupidest hypotheticals imaginable and overall just be gross? Fuck that.
So it’s okay to cause pain to plants, because they don’t react to the stimuli the same way as animals? That’s what your link claims. Sounds like y’all are on a foundation of salt and sand. Plants are sentient, just not sapient.
They dont have a nervous system you dumb fuck and even if they feel pain
Regardless, each pound of animal flesh requires between four and thirteen pounds of plant matter to produce, depending upon species and conditions. Given that amount of plant death, a belief in the sentience of plants makes a strong pro-vegan argument.
Neat, so even if I’m right- you wanna call names. I disagree that it makes a pro-vegan argument, it just makes vegans look equally as cruel, and intellectually dishonest on top of it.
nah dude you started with the names and rudeness I just responded in kind, dont act all high and mighty now. And if you actually believed that killing a newborn is the same as picking a salad you would do your utmost to make sure your consumption minimizes plant death which again would mean a vegan diet since meat “production” requires a multiple of plant by mass, not to mention how many many many more plants have to “die” by the numbers to feed one animal before you murder it.
Where did I call you a name? Man, you’re now arguing against things I never said. Not beating the allegations of vegans being preachy, holier-than-thou ideologues.
Youve been calling it “moral grandstanding”, “self-serving ideologues” basically at every turn youve been condescending and snide, so don’t act all shocked when some of it is returned.
Ok forget about the vegans, bunch of preachy, sanctimonious, self-centered assholes every single one. Do you, as a non-hypocritical person with certain principles, think the exploitation of sentient beings is unethical and should be boycotted?
No- I know what you’re trying to go for, because it’s the same argument every Vegan thinks is their coup de grace. I, as a thinking person, am able to kill and use other animals to eat, for clothing, for protection, or for whatever else I need. I do not believe it is more or less moral to be vegan than it is to eat meat or use animal products. Are you able to prove that the plants you “exploit” aren’t sentient? No. Because sentience and life are not easily defined terms. Anyways, have a good rest of your life.
Dont have to, already done:
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive/resources
this isn’t proof plants aren’t sentient
it is but it’s such a tedious point to argue I’m just not gonna. If you truly believe that plants are sentient and that picking a salad is the same as slaughtering a newborn (and lets be real here, you don’t) then you should still go vegan to minimize death of sentient life. Or starve, either way is fine by me.
I didn’t say what I believe. I said what you provided is not and cannot be proof that plants aren’t sentient. no such proof can exist.
It is within the context of this conversation. Words can change their meaning depending on context and no one definition will hold true always. If you actually cared about the topic within the context of a formal debate you would have challenged the other person for asserting a claim and then asking for proof of the contrary. But you’re just a pedant.
the other person seems to have been making the same point that I am, and in pointing out that what you provided is not proof to the contrary, I am engaging in the discussion at the same level.
try not lying about whether you’re providing proof.
No they haven’t, they asserted that it is no less moral to eat meat than to be vegan. In the case that animals are sentient but plants are not, clearly eating only plants is the more moral choice. Therefore a necessary condition for their assertion is that both animals and plants are not sentient or that both are. Their call for proof that plants aren’t sentient suggests that they meant the latter.
Since they made an assertion requiring the assumption that plants are sentient and then asked for proof that they are not, my statement that they made a claim and asked proof of the contrary is correct. Which is different from the statement you made, that my proof is not actually one.
I’m not engaging with this 🤓👆-ass bullshit further. We are supposed to make these formally correct arguments in a polite and restrained manner while the bloodmouths make snide remarks and jokes, the stupidest hypotheticals imaginable and overall just be gross? Fuck that.
So it’s okay to cause pain to plants, because they don’t react to the stimuli the same way as animals? That’s what your link claims. Sounds like y’all are on a foundation of salt and sand. Plants are sentient, just not sapient.
They dont have a nervous system you dumb fuck and even if they feel pain
Neat, so even if I’m right- you wanna call names. I disagree that it makes a pro-vegan argument, it just makes vegans look equally as cruel, and intellectually dishonest on top of it.
nah dude you started with the names and rudeness I just responded in kind, dont act all high and mighty now. And if you actually believed that killing a newborn is the same as picking a salad you would do your utmost to make sure your consumption minimizes plant death which again would mean a vegan diet since meat “production” requires a multiple of plant by mass, not to mention how many many many more plants have to “die” by the numbers to feed one animal before you murder it.
Where did I call you a name? Man, you’re now arguing against things I never said. Not beating the allegations of vegans being preachy, holier-than-thou ideologues.
Youve been calling it “moral grandstanding”, “self-serving ideologues” basically at every turn youve been condescending and snide, so don’t act all shocked when some of it is returned.
Kicking a tree is the same as kicking a horse got it.
no one said that