Vegans...

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A plant doesn't have brains so it doesn't have consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you would be so kind:

What do you mean by "consciousness"?
How do you know that plants do not have consciousness?
Does the effectiveness of the "brain" in the animal affect your thinking? (I'm going back to my stupid chickens again)

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship.

I thought it's pretty certain plants can't have consciousness, I might be wrong though, is it not?

From what I read sometime ago when here was a thread about veganism, the differences in some brain functionality (like feeling pain etc.) etc. might, according to some newer research, be much smaller than previously thought, even between like humans and fish. And chickens are probably more advanced than fish.. I'm definitely not saying people would be worth as little as fish, but I'm saying that it would be hard to argue rationally that fish life has practically zero value if human life has value.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure my emotions would try to tell me they are as valuable, but when I'd think about it, I'd see it doesn't make any sense. Same thing as valuing a pet dog/cat more than a random pig I'm eating. Also the same thing as when I see a few white people or a few black people somewhere, I would probably first like the white people more, before realizing it's just racism to not like the black ones.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is normal to value your friends and family above others. It is unreasonable to expect others to value your friends or family above their own. If we accept a loosely democratic model as the only reasonable one for decision making when the outcome effects everyone, 'this person is my relative' is a moot point. This is a naive view of how we value human life in high stakes situations - and any situation in which we are forced to assign value to a human life is certainly high stakes.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "consciousness"?


[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I assumed your definition was, generally. So, exactly what part of this definition do you think applies to a fish?

[ QUOTE ]
but I'm saying that it would be hard to argue rationally that fish life has practically zero value if human life has value.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is it about a fish that gives it's life value, when compared to a human?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if a mentally retarded person is murdered, do you believe the murderer should be punished less?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a similar difference that you find between a cow and a human. (Assuming you eat cows and do not eat humans)

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Dan, now you're just posting without thinking. One is cannibalism, and the other isn't. Care to try again? What is the difference between plant "life" and animal "life"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is eating humans wrong but eating cows okay? I understand that one is cannibalism. Why is that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Cannibalism is rare (wrong?) among most species, humans included. Eating other animals for food is certainly not rare (wrong?) among the species. By the way, that's another reason chickens are [censored] stupid creatures.

Vegans are fine upstanding citizens in my book (unless they're dirty hippies), it's a choice they've made. There is no right or wrong about what our species eats, in my opinion (short of cannibalism, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds dangerously close to a natural law argument. Surely it isn't, though, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
how can abortion not be a life or death issue?

A fetus will either be allowed to continue being alive or forced to die.

I dont think you can disagree with that statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a ridiculously dishonest way of putting it. Scratching my back is then a life or death issue. Your response to this post will demonstrate exactly WHY this is a dishonest tactic. You will take care to add in a whole bunch of new definitions and assumptions to make it clear that a fetus is different from some hair or skin on my back. And NONE of those definitions are included in the dishonest "life or death" phrasing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Lets be as clear as we can about things, and not misuse terminology. Are you opposed to me pulling weeds in my garden? Harvesting corn and wheat? All of those are composed of cells that are dividing. We are terminating life in all those cases. You would say "Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with farming is deluding themselves?"

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory? Yes. And some Fruitarians may agree in practice, eating only fruit that has fallen from the plant. But in my life, there's obviously lines that must be drawn as far as acceptability of destroying life. And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly fine. I agree that there must be lines drawn, and that they are pretty much arbitrary. I draw them above cows and below chimps. You draw them above plants and below cows, but not below animals probably, as I'm sure you've killed flies. I don't begrudge you your arbitrary line. I DO begrudge you the use of "life is sacred" and "we must protect life" and other pithy but dishonest phrases. Say what you mean, not what you think will score you emotional points. We must not protect life, we must protect life above some arbitrary line. And then take some care to explain why you draw your line where you do.