Animals Are Not Ours To Wear

I could make a robot that has sensors and make it react to different stimuli. The robot can "feel" but it's reaction is just it following a program. It has no thoughts. It has no "feelings".

Plants and cells are like organic robots. They do the things they do because they are programmed to. They do not make conscious desicions.
 
Outsiderzedge said:
Cellular memory is just information stored in a cell. It's not sentience. Cells do not think. They only react how they are programmed to. They do not feel pain, torment or anything else. Cells do not go insane. Cells do not feel sad. Cells do not feel.

The idea is so stupid, I have a headache knowing someone actually thinks it could be true.

Awwww....I see, resort to insulting people that have an open mind. Nice. You don't know that a tree can't think...How do you know that? have you asked one? Do you have the capability to ask one? Do you have any frame of reffernce for which to make your claims? I didn't think so.

BTW, you can harm and even kill a plant by saying negative things about it, and by yelling at it. You can make a plant grow fast and strong by encouraging it and playing soothing music for it. Explain that one.

It is my firm intellectual and religious belief that plants have as much right to life and as many feelings as animals. I do not force that belief on anyone else, but what I am saying is that you don't know. And Ms. Venice is personally offending me with her lack of regard for one species of life and not another. It's hypocrisy. Her contention is plants are lower life forms, and since she isn't aware of their feelings that they must not have any. I eat and wear animals. I eat plants, and use wood for my shelter. It is the natural order of the world. It is what we were designed to do. Our bodies crave and benefit from a healthy, balanced diet. You know what we weren't meant to eat? Grain. Our bodies have a hard time processing raw grain. We need to grind it, and change it in order to digest it. Grain is for feed animals, and we are to eat them. It is a natural cycle.
 
Outsiderzedge said:
I could make a robot that has sensors and make it react to different stimuli. The robot can "feel" but it's reaction is just it following a program. It has no thoughts. It has no "feelings".

Plants and cells are like organic robots. They do the things they do because they are programmed to. They do not make conscious desicions.
So, now you're saying that "free will" is the deliniating factor in determining whether something can "feel" or not?

jag
 
Outsiderzedge said:
I could make a robot that has sensors and make it react to different stimuli. The robot can "feel" but it's reaction is just it following a program. It has no thoughts. It has no "feelings".

Plants and cells are like organic robots. They do the things they do because they are programmed to. They do not make conscious desicions.
3

Prove it. Prove it without relying on your limited understanding of plants. Ask a tree if it feels...oh wait, you can't because you have no way to. Seems to me you can't prove your statement. You can't because you have no common frame of refference. You can't communicate with a tree, so you can't really say with any degree of certainty that they do not have thoughts.
 
You need a mind to feel, otherwise, it is just molecules and cells reacting.
 
Outsiderzedge said:
You need a mind to feel, otherwise, it is just molecules and cells reacting.
According to what criteria is a mind a requirement to feel? Where are you getting that from? And anyway, who says that plants and trees don't have minds? Just because they aren't minds like mammals, fish and amphibians doesn't mean that they don't exist.

jag
 
Outsiderzedge said:
You need a mind to feel, otherwise, it is just molecules and cells reacting.

YOU need a mind to feel. Who is to say a plant doesn't have a mind, structured in a way entirely different than an animal's? YOU need lungs to breathe, a plant does not. YOU need muscle and bone and sinew to move, a plant does not. Plants give off radio waves that react with the waves of other plants and are then re-transmitted back to the plant, only altered by the other plant. That sounds like communication to me. Plants have different biological systems that operate differently than an animals...do you get that? Not many people have done the research needed to determine that plants don't have a central intelligence. I only know what I know, and I don't claim to know any facts about the way they think and feel. I only know it is POSSIBLE that they do think and feel.
 
Outsiderzedge said:
You need a mind to feel, otherwise, it is just molecules and cells reacting.


What is a "mind"? A brain is a collection of molecules and cells reacting. We are merely electro-chemical responses...that is all that our minds are. And since our conciousness is made up merely of molecules and cells reacting, what makes you think plants don't feel or think?
 
Well Jag, thanks for the conversation, even if we were conversing on parallel planes and didn't interact, it's always a pleasure talking with you. I have things to do today...take care everyone.
 
Where is the mind in a plant? Have you guys ever seen the anatomy of a plant. There is no organ or structure in a plant that would house a mind. Plants are incredibly simple organisms. Where in the hell are you guys getting the notion that a plant can think or has a mind?

Oh my god, I can't believe I'm debating whether a plant has a mind or not.
 
A pleasure as always to share some interesting discussions with you, bluejake, even when they travel side by side rather than intersecting. :) Have a good one.

jag
 
Outsiderzedge said:
Where is the mind in a plant? Have you guys ever seen the anatomy of a plant. There is no organ or structure in a plant that would house a mind. Plants are incredibly simple organisms. Where in the hell are you guys getting the notion that a plant can think or has a mind?

Oh my god, I can't believe I'm debating whether a plant has a mind or not.
Why does there have to be a physical, central representation of a brain in a plant in order for it to qualify as having one? For all you know, the brain structure of a plant is distributed throughout it's entire cell structure, making it's entire body it's brain if you will.

jag
 
Outsiderzedge said:
Where is the mind in a plant? Have you guys ever seen the anatomy of a plant. There is no organ or structure in a plant that would house a mind. Plants are incredibly simple organisms. Where in the hell are you guys getting the notion that a plant can think or has a mind?

Oh my god, I can't believe I'm debating whether a plant has a mind or not.

Co-location, all the cells interact and may very well house conciousness. You are aware that studies suggest that our seat of conciousness may not even be in our brain? Our brain is but one of many biological systems at our disposal. Read "the Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. It's fun to read and expand your mind once in awhile...go on, think out side the box...grow as a being. You can do it young one.
 
jaguarr said:
You read too little theoretical botany.

jag


only because there's no such thing as too much theoretical botany. oh yah! :joker:
 
wow, very interesting thread.

i will say this (if I may):

I love animals. I really do. I ran over a turtle once in my van (windoes were rolled down and i heard the crunch of itys shell). I was devastated for days. Between my family and I (I'm from VA but live in Philly now for college), we have many pets (3 dogs, 6 cats, 2 birds, a gueini pig and we've had a couple iguanas, 2 goats, fish, other cats, snakes, a ferret, lizards, etc - we live in a big house with a lot of land, so we have room, lol). I am constantly (when i'm home) checking in on the guinea pig and asking my brother if he takes care of it (he keeps it locked in its cage all the time and isnt good about taking care of it) its not even my pet yet I feel sooo sad for it sometimes (btw the gpig isnt suffering, its healthy and stuff). I truely believe that ALL animals are self-aware, that they have thoughts and feelings, and some even hold beliefs. I really can't stand to see a hurt animal, no matter what its "cuteness" level may or may not be. I've never been hunting, although I would like to for the simple fact that the process of hunting (becoming one with nature - not the shooting/killing) seems like such a spiritual and fulfulling event. But hunting is needed (i just wish people could be perfect shots and get the game donw w/one shot, so as not to let it suffer) Seeing or hearing of animal abuse/violence disturbs me and the only real confort i get is the realization that the animal being abused is now (or will be soon hopefully) dead and free of the pain. And its not even physical pain/abuse of animals that bothers me. Its the mental/emotional abuse as well (but you never really hear PETA argue about that do you?).

all this being said, I do eat meat, I love meat. And, I'm against most groups like/including PETA. Am I a hipocrit? Not in the slightest. I am a realist.

The prospect of countless animals dieing out of nessicity for another creature higher up on the food chain is part of life. A part of Nature. It is meant to be and will forever be. By saying it is wrong for us, as humans (read: animals - a part of Nature) to kill and eat other animals is not only ridicoulous but it also goes against the natural order of Nature. Not only that, but our bodies NEED MEAT. If you are a vegan or vegiterian, do not tell me that you didnt have a hard time becoming so if you say this, you are either a liar or still eat some amount of meat- your body goes into shock w/out the protiens it needs from meat. Yeah, eventualy your body learns to cope, but its never as healthy (and most "v's" intergrate more excerise into their daily life when they "turn" and that it was makes them think they are healthier).

I think that PETA and similar groups mean well - cruelty to animals IS a problem that needs to be handled BUT A) they go about it all wrong what with thier terrorist/cult like behavior and B)they're taking their agenda too far by saying eating meat is wrong. Most people who are for PETA are only so because they see "PETA" and think "oh, look. they're trying to help the little cuddly animals. ghow can you be against them" without even really being studious enough to further investigate and look for the real UNBIASED truth about PETA.

If you're for PETA, I admire you're compassion for animals. Yet sadly, I think you are being misled amd should reevaluate your position and you should look for an alternate animal group that are also realists. Find a group (or start one) that doesnt burn buildings, destroy property, cause the loss of jobs for people, waste everyones time and money and more importantly lobbies for BETTER TREATMENT of animals, not the end of humans need for meat.

oh, and you should see how other animals treat other animals...it can be and usualy is more gruesome than what we normaly do. should we try and burn their dens and nests down or form a picket line around the kill?
 
Animals are property. They can't reason, if put in an evironment they would eat resources until their population started to die. Animals can not be put on trial be held morally responsible.

Whenever one animal is killed, 10 more are breed to take its place, they are a renewable resource that enough humans demand to trade for.

If someone wants to breed animals and kill them for fur they are free to do so.

If you don't want to see animals die, buy them and take care of them. Hope you have room for infinite number of cows.

If enough buyers demand that they kill animals "nicer", it will be done but most consumers are not willing to pay a higher price for animals to die without pain. I'm honest that I accept a lower price for thousands of animals feeling pain before death and most of the world agrees with me.

"Do gazelles have a right to not be eaten by Lions? If so how does one punish a lion for the murder of a gazelle?"
 
Human Shield said:
Animals are property. They can't reason, if put in an evironment they would eat resources until their population started to die. Animals can not be put on trial be held morally responsible.

Whenever one animal is killed, 10 more are breed to take its place, they are a renewable resource that enough humans demand to trade for.

If someone wants to breed animals and kill them for fur they are free to do so.

If you don't want to see animals die, buy them and take care of them. Hope you have room for infinite number of cows.

If enough buyers demand that they kill animals "nicer", it will be done but most consumers are not willing to pay a higher price for animals to die without pain. I'm honest that I accept a lower price for thousands of animals feeling pain before death and most of the world agrees with me.

"Do gazelles have a right to not be eaten by Lions? If so how does one punish a lion for the murder of a gazelle?"

humans = animals. when an animal hurts a human its "put down". it should be vice versa
 
Lucy Diamond said:
humans = animals. when an animal hurts a human its "put down". it should be vice versa

Humans = animals is not why animals are put down for harming humans.

They're put down because we don't know whether they will do it again or not. Atleast with a human, you can try to "rehabilitate."

IMO, humans who kill or harm others or animals for fun should be put down.
 
Outsiderzedge said:
Humans = animals is not why animals are put down for harming humans.

They're put down because we don't know whether they will do it again or not. Atleast with a human, you can try to "rehabilitate."

IMO, humans who kill or harm others or animals for fun should be put down.

i had a point, but i forgot it. :(
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"