Originally posted by bbarrAnd I am sure you are as equally keen to attack shops selling wool with your spray can if they don't give in to intimidation.
You may call it an attack if you wish. I'll admit that it is meant to be intimidating, and that it is meant to scare people who sell fur and wear fur. I don't call it an attack because the point isn't to harm the person wearing the fur, but to destroy their property. I'll call it an attack on property with the intent to intimidate, if you wish. I certa ...[text shortened]... meat and wear animal products, or is your callousness merely the result of ignorance?
Cheers!
Those who relish punishing others for their cause are fanatics.
1 edit
See this link: http://www.aob.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/1/1
for a discussion of intelligence in plants, particulary the work of Stenhouse (1974). If plants exhibit intelligence, just in a different form than animals, aren't you vegans disregarding its rights and committing a moral transgression by eating it? Wouldn't someone who threw salad dressing on you while you were munching on a stalk of celery be doing morally permissible "direct action" in response to your vicious crime?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy do you think that I think that being alive is sufficient for having rights? Haven't you been paying attention? Plants don't have minds, hence they have no interests, hence nothing can go better or worse for them from their point of view ('cause they ain't got a point of view). As I've said (many times before), I think that the possession of certain psychological characteristics is necessary for having rights (e.g., the capacity to suffer, rudimentary rationality, and rudimentary self-consciousness). If you have studied cognitive ethology, you'd recognize that mammals have these psychological characteristics, and hence qualify (by my lights) as rights holders.
Why just animals? Aren't plants living things as well? Don't they have rights, too? Therefore, isn't someone who eats a carrot or wears a fig leaf is committing a moral transgression as well?
Originally posted by no1marauderI doubt you're attempting to be disingenous. You probably just don't know what you're talking about. The notion of 'intelligence' at work in the article you cite is the following: Adaptively variable behaviour within the lifetime of the individual. On that definition, thermostats qualify as intelligent!
See this link: http://www.aob.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/1/1
for a discussion of intelligence in plants, particulary the work of Stenhouse (1974). If plants exhibit intelligence, just in a different form than animals, aren't you vegans disregarding its rights and committing a moral transgression by eating it? Wouldn't so ...[text shortened]... talk of celery be doing morally permissible "direct action" in response to your vicious crime?
Originally posted by steerpikeNo, not really. There are wool shops here in Seattle that procure wool from farmers that don't mistreat the animals in their care.
And I am sure you are as equally keen to attack shops selling wool with your spray can if they don't give in to intimidation.
Those who relish punishing others for their cause are fanatics.
You are free to stipulate a definition for 'fanatic'. I think that those who delight in products procured by virtue of torturing and killing animals are fanatics, as well as being morally blind. By my definition, you qualify as a both.
Cheers!
Originally posted by bbarrI wasn't aware that thermostats were living things, so I assume you're being disingenous (or don't know what you're talking about). If a living thing does "adaptively variable behavior within its lifetime" why wouldn't you consider it as having just as much of a mind as say, a sheep? What exactly does a sheep do differently than "exhibit adaptively variable behavior within its lifetime" similar to plants? How does a sheep have a "mind" and a plant not have one?
I doubt you're attempting to be disingenous. You probably just don't know what you're talking about. The notion of 'intelligence' at work in the article you cite is the following: Adaptively variable behaviour within the lifetime of the individual. On that definition, thermostats qualify as intelligent!
Originally posted by bbarrAccording to PETA, there are no wool shops that procure wool from farmers that don't mistreat the animals in their care. On their site:
No, not really. There are wool shops here in Seattle that procure wool from farmers that don't mistreat the animals in their care.
You are free to stipulate a definition for 'fanatic'. I think that those who delight in products procured by virtue of torturing and killing animals are fanatics, as well as being morally blind. By my definition, you qualify as a both.
Cheers!
Anyone who buys wool helps foot the bill for a cruel and bloody industry that no amount of fluff can hide. There are plenty of durable, stylish, and warm fabrics available that aren't made from animal skins. Please join the millions of people who know that compassion is the fashion. Save a sheep—don't buy wool.
PETA are opposed to farming animals at all. This campaign is to stop the farming of wool from sheep - and they dishonestly confuse animal skins with wool on their web site. Many PETA activists would not know the difference.
If the mulesing and live exports stopped tomorrow - would the campaign stop? So these objectives are not the reason for their intimidation campaign.
Just more dishonesty from PETA.
Originally posted by steerpikesteerpike,
Those who relish punishing others for their cause are fanatics.
you are the one who diverted this thread into a AR activist bashing effort.
it seems to me that you would like to see AR activists punished or at least thought not too nicely of because of your beliefs as you try to divert attention from the real issue of the sheep by maligning AR activists by accusing them without proof of being thugs. that is hardly the focus of the thread.
in friendship,
prad
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderUm, they're not living things, no1. They do fit the definition of 'intelligence' provided by the researcher you cite. If thermostats are intelligent, according to that definition, then why should the additional property of being alive make any difference at all? It is certainly not the case that it is sufficient for being able to suffer that a creature be living. It is certainly not the case that it is sufficient to be able to suffer that a creature satisfy that definition of 'intelligence'. So, you do the math! Why should a vegan (or anybody else for that matter) worry about eating plants or using them as resources generally?
I wasn't aware that thermostats were living things, so I assume you're being disingenous (or don't know what you're talking about). If a living thing does "adaptively variable behavior within its lifetime" why wouldn't ...[text shortened]... plants? How does a sheep have a "mind" and a plant not have one?
Originally posted by no1maraudertell you what no1 ...
What exactly does a sheep do differently than "exhibit adaptively variable behavior within its lifetime" similar to plants? How does a sheep have a "mind" and a plant not have one?
how about we liberate the sheep and the other 30 billion animals who are going to die each year under atrocious conditions first and then i'll personally join your free the plants campaign. after you invest some time in the animal rights arena, you will be in a better position for sure to conduct a boycott of iceberg lettuce!
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrWell, you've certainly logically proven that one wouldn't be committing a moral transgression by eating a thermostat (bon apetit!), but I'll get back to ya on the plant thing: I'm curious to see if plants "suffer" or react with "emotions" to certain stimuli and I want to read more material. Save me the dial!
Um, they're not living things, no1. They do fit the definition of 'intelligence' provided by the researcher you cite. If thermostats are intelligent, according to that definition, then why should the additional property of being alive make any difference at all? It is certainly not the case that it is sufficient for being able to suffer that a creature b ...[text shortened]... nybody else for that matter) worry about eating plants or using them as resources generally?