debate

ye ye precisely in the appealing to futility. and while yeah i'd be crazy to disagree that our life experiences are scientifically non analogous, i genuinely feel like they are *existentially* analogous. to put so much merit in something's 'value' based on its ability to feel via a nervous system or by the fact that it is a part of existence that can evidently perceive itself feels like...it's adding unnecessary axioms to some kind of objective observation of reality. to answer your question: i would rather drop the potted plant. my human instinct tells me to care for the mammal over the plant and that its life holds some inherent value over the other; however, i still am plagued with this feeling that that is truly instinct over an objective view of existence in a perfectly logical/rational light. does that makes any sense? people say i'm a bit loony at times =p edit: it's to its b/c i'm fried

So you agree your making a fallacy, so you agree your being illogical? You add about the values of life being seemingly arbitrary but to agree you're making a fallacy is to agree you're being illogical, and we can't really hold a debate if you admit to that? Just trying to clarify xD! So I contest this. You say that it's illogical why you would prefer the animal, but wouldn't it be because the animal will feel fear? Empathy is not an illogical feeling, we have it for a very important reason; the golden rule. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. That is why our society can function, because of the golden rule. I suppose I would probe further by asking if you would rather stomp on a plant, or a cat? I can already assume you would say plant, and the reason being the cat can feel pain and fear. I would then remind you that the animal agriculture industry is basically a torture chamber, as 95% of the meat is factory farmed. If you want to simply debate the merits of killing a plant vs killing an animal and not discuss the industry however we can do that, as I believe I can still defend the point that no matter what you should not unreasonably kill an animal.

yeah I'm generally a very confused and self-contradicting person haha. and yeah yeah doesn't have to be a debate but more of an exchange. and yeah empathy is pretty cool. it's nice to be able to sense those golden-rule type situations and act in a manner that is logical and also ethical. and this is where I get crossed up; even though I believe humans/animals/plants/things/matter all have the same value, i'm still willing to end the [scientifically-yet-not-existentially non analogous] lives of plants and animals to sustain my own existence. I think because of that it feels irrelevant and kind of nit-picky to be like "things with nervous systems and relatable life are existentially more worthy of that life". to answer that question: of course the plant, could never hurt the precious neko-chan! specifically <3 cats. even more than humans most of the time haha. and you don't need to remind me, i'm well aware at how disgusting the animal agriculture industry is. comes as no shock or surprise given *points around*free-enterprise. if ya have money you can do whatever you want, ya know =p so yeah there really is no debate on the industry between us. when i'm talking about meat consumption i mean in the most arbitrary and ethically-minded circumstance: locally sourced, responsibly farmed stuff! like come onnn, fish are just food for bigger fish. may as well be me who gets the meal on wheels. don't take away my sushii but yeah I definitely need some kind of big psychic smack to push me over the chicken/fish meat-eating into vegetarianism, let alone veganism. i really like cheese and eggs too, ugh

Hey no problem :3! Happens to me too xD I guess the best way to clear up the issue is to not think abstractly and just look at the industry in general. Baby male pigs get their testicals cut off with a rusty pair of cutters because they'll spoil the meat, and often times mother pigs will get sores on their bodies because they cant properly move in the cramped conditions, and when they do there's so little room they often lay on their babies and kill them. Chickens are bred to be so ginormous theyr legs cant support themselves and they break under their own weight, as well as the fact that they sit on wire from the cages all day that cuts them up. Ever hear of channel foot? It's a condition that often effects dogs born from puppy mills as they stand on wire cages, and that happens to chickens as well, but mostly their entire bodies. Slaughterhouse workers themselves have a really high rate of ptsd for the things they have to do and see. It's dark, smells like shit, and animals are screaming because they scared, and this often times stresses the worker out so they take it out on the animals, hitting them with tools. I hold no grudges against slaughterhouse workers, these people often come from low income areas and its the best work they can get, and they often suffer horribly as well. These are all reasons why an animal life is not analogous to a plants life. Because they can suffer emotionally and physically, where as plants do neither. Just fun facted, but chicken is one of the worst meats cruelty wise. It takes way more dead chickens to make your food then it does pigs or cows, and as I said above they go through hell just as bad as either of them. So if the 'plant life and animal life are both important' issue is gone, what exactly is your ideological issue with switching? Sorry if this sounds too debate-y, I never mean to come off as confrontational, but I'm really bad at wording things to sound softer xD I'm just curious so we can carry on the conversation :3

I'm interested in this. Can you tell me what trait an animal lacks that allows you to take away their moral consideration? Like, why can you kill an animal but not a human? What trait does the human have that the animal lacks?

yup yup. let me address what my limited attention-span will allow. while i'm not explicitly aware of those cruelties I am ultimately aware that disgusting/depraved stuff like that goes on. every big industry cuts every single corner it can for profit, why would animal agriculture be any different? I absolutely concede that factory animal farming is shitty as fuck and that amount of suffering it causes to living beings, humans and animals, is completely unnecessary and a slap in the face to ethics and humankind's moral compass. for sure. that being said, raising your own chickens and farming your own fish in a "homesteading" manner still seems very ethical, even fully embracing the RP that suffering and death are objectively awful, as opposed to neutral. I think that's where all of this stems from. Even the most negative, disgusting, depraved thing, is really just a thing, to me. Ethics isn't quite like gravity or light, i think is the way I feel. I appreciate ethics and I appreciate not getting murdered or beaten up and being allowed to be a part of the universe observing itself peacefully. for sure. I just hold steadfast in my belief that if every single living thing disappeared from the universe, nervous system or not, existence would persist and be just fine. and to specifically answer that last question, which has a bit sociopathic of an answer: because it [taking away their moral consideration] is acceptable by the majority of people at present. I have zero desire to kill people, I love sapience and have the utmost respect for any sapient being. but the specific trait that [non-human] animals lack that make animal murder and consumption acceptable is that lack of sapience. specifically if non-human animals had more complex languages/easily understood cognitions I think they would come off the menu relatively quickly. so for you: do you think there is such a thing as ethical meat consumption? specifically in a completely independent "homestead" manner? or is that also unacceptable for reasons not yet discussed?

Aaahh I too suffer from paragraph allergies xD that's why I try and break it up as much as possible, so it's easier to read. So you say that raising your own chicken and fishing is "very ethical" but I would ask what is ethical about it? Even if given that you somehow meet the vast amount of space chickens need they will end up going to a slaughterhouse, unless you plan to kill them by hand. Then I would ask what is "very ethical" about ending an animals life unreasonably? You can live healthy on a plant based diet, so why do you need to end that animals life? Can I then push further and ask how comfortably do you need to keep something before you are morally allowed to cut its life short? Ah so your appealing to culture? Well slavery was accepted by the vast amount of people, was slavery morally justified? Yes, I believe that indigenous peoples can hunt and farm and be morally justified because it is that or starve, and I hold the life of a human above that of an animal. If you see road kill I also think that's fine to eat. As long as you either did not kill or incentivise that killing, and/or need it to live I think you are morally justified in eating meat.

Reasoning would be a big one, if a deer wanted to gore you with its antlers, it's gonna do it, it's not gonna go I can't eat that I'm a herbavore. Your also trying to tack human morals to wild animals, when even domesticated animals don't get morals fully. Also animals often kill for sport and I mean often, you can't really hold human and animals to the same understanding. If tigers started killing mass people we'd stop them but if a tiger killed a lone person we'd chalk it up to tiger needed to eat. You just can't approach untame wildlife with human morals they don't get it. Factory housed animals aren't a whole lot worse off than free ranged animals if we have them running around in the millions.

@atmousfear im not sure if that was aimed for me but we can have a debate after the one I'm having with frozen if you'd like