Factory Farming Horror Stories

[Doctor Evo]

Ok after all this time i can't help but when you are asking for an answer about it. You just make my day!

I've already explained - twice - why I've asked the question.

Oh god I'm crying from the laughs. Ok i had a change of heart. I never said it is wrong to kill an animal other than self defence reasons.

I'm pretty certain that you did.

No great philosophical reasons needed. It is just unnecessary to kill an animal for no reason. We don't need meat at all to survive and thankfully we live out of the caves and dont need their skin anymore to keep us warm. Let me guess i still haven't backed up my thesis? lol

This is actually much better than anything you've provided previously in terms of a justification, but it still doesn't answer the core question re: morality.

At least you actually put some effort into this answer.

Yeah we all know how that turned out

I love that you followed this with links about plant responses to stimuli, when I was clearly referencing our discussion about morality.

"OpinionDecember 9, 2008 at 4:54 AM

Recent studies have proven plants have feelings, too.

Researchers from Michigan State University have discovered that plants have a rudimentary nerve structure, which allows them to feel pain. According to the peer-reviewed journal Plant Physiology, plants are capable of identifying danger, signaling that danger to other plants and marshaling defenses against perceived threats. According to botanist Bill Williams of the Helvetica Institute, "plants not only seem to be aware and to feel pain, they can even communicate."

This research has prompted the Swiss government to pass the first-ever Plant Bill of Rights. It concludes that plants have moral and legal protections, and Swiss citizens have to treat them appropriately. The Penn State Vegetarians Club would do well to investigate this data before claiming to be superior to those of us who do not subscribe to the idea that eating meat is morally wrong.

Stephen Johnson

Class of 2007"

This is a case of interpretations run wild. The fact that plants can respond to external stimuli doesn't translate into awareness or the comprehension of pain. Williams' interpretation of the results don't follow from the key findings of the study. Namely:

[P]lants are capable of identifying danger, signaling that danger to other plants and marshaling defenses against perceived threats.

None of these responses require any level of self-awareness, nor do they require the ability to feel pain. These constitute automated responses to external stimuli.

If the argument you're trying to make here is that plants can suffer, then you're failing pretty miserably. You're relying on loose interpretation and imprecise language more than any actual scientific evidence.

"The hidden world of plants.
Can plants really feel?
An Indian scientist, Dr. Jagadishchandra Bose, invented a instrument called the crescograph. The crescograph is a device that measures growth in plants. Bose experimented with temperature, chemicals, gasses and electricity.

In his research in plant stimuli, Bose showed, that plants responded to various stimuli as if they had nervous systems like that of animals. He therefore found a correlation between animal and plant tissues. His experiments showed that plants grow faster in pleasant music and their growth is ******ed in noise or harsh sound. Bose came to the conclusion that plants can “feel pain [and] understand affection.”

Bose discovered the use of electrical signalling in plants, also indicated in the video you showed earlier. Again, his interpretations of the experimental results are suspect.

Putting this into an evolutionary context, you'd have to wonder why a plant would respond positively to affection. This is a hurdle that Bose (nor any other botanist) has ever been able to pass.

Also, music itself is a physical stimulus: patterned compression waves. No awareness is required for it to have a potential effect on plant physiology.

Are plants intelligent?
According to the peer-reviewed journal Plant Physiology, plants are capable of identifying danger, signaling that danger to other plants and defending against perceived threats. According to botanist Bill Williams of the Helvetica Institute, “plants not only seem to be aware and feel pain, they can even communicate.”
Read more in Botany
« The Castor Bean PlantThe Origin of flower’s name »
This was the conclusion of Cleve Backster back in the 1960s. He’s the former CIA interrogation specialist that connected polygraph sensors to plants and discovered that they reacted to harm (i.e. cutting their leaves) and even to harmful thoughts of humans in proximity to them.
Backster decided to see what would happen if he threatened a plant, and formed in his mind the idea of lighting a match to the leaf where the electrodes were attached. What happend next was something that forever changed Baxter’s life and ours. For the plant didn’t wait for him to light the match. It reacted to his thoughts! In fact, Backster found that plants are not only psychic, they also are prophetic, anticipating negative and positive events, including weather.

Backster's "study" was also widely panned among scientific circles for his sloppy methodology, calling into question the results of his experiments.

Also, I don't think the results have been successfully replicated. The Mythbusters gave it a shot, too. It was a fun episode. Not a scientific source, granted, but if you're at all interested:

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/09/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html

Plants have many different ways of defending themselves. Some stradegies are the use of chemicals, physical characteristics, or by encouraging the presence of natural enemies of herbivores. Thistles, roses, and many other plants are covered with sharp spines. The large thorn-like stipules of Acacia collinsii are hollow and afford shelter for ants, which in return protect the plant against herbivores.
Nettles have tiny hairs full of painful chemicals. If an animal tries to eat one, the hairs give the animal’s mouth a “shot” of those chemicals. Foxgloves produce several deadly chemicals, namely cardiac and steroidal glycosides. Ingestion can cause nausea, vomiting, hallucinations, convulsions, or death.
When an antelope or other large animal chews the leaves of an African acacia tree, the tree calls out a warning using gas! First the tree pumps chemicals into its leaves to make them taste bad. Amazingly, it also sends a special gas out through its leaves. As the gas drifts to other acacia trees, it “tells” those trees, “Look out, hungry animals are on the prowl!” Then the other trees start pumping the chemical into their leaves.

This can be achieved entirely through hormonal responses. Yet again, none of these responses require any actual perception of pain, nor do they require any self-awareness.

There are plenty of similar links but I won't waste my time trying to prove the obvious to you. Of course plants are not intelligent like we are but they are still a life form that feel in some way and interact with the air, the sun and the environment. They are not a lifeless thing. That's what I was trying to explain to you but you got back with that "genius phd" attitude and the baseball remarks.

I never argued that they were incapable of responding to their environment. Where did I ever say they couldn't? I also never argued that they were "lifeless."

You seem intent upon misinterpreting nearly everything I say.

For the record: you specifically claimed that plants can FEEL through the use of NERVE receptors. The context of your claim seemed to imply that plants can suffer, i.e., can perceive pain. This is the claim with which I take issue.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Well if u don't believe the studies then OK.

...do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?

 

[Alex_Spider]

I've already explained - twice - why I've asked the question.

I'm pretty certain that you did.

This is actually much better than anything you've provided previously in terms of a justification, but it still doesn't answer the core question re: morality.

At least you actually put some effort into this answer.


I love that you followed this with links about plant responses to stimuli, when I was clearly referencing our discussion about morality.

This is a case of interpretations run wild. The fact that plants can respond to external stimuli doesn't translate into awareness or the comprehension of pain. Williams' interpretation of the results don't follow from the key findings of the study. Namely:



None of these responses require any level of self-awareness, nor do they require the ability to feel pain. These constitute automated responses to external stimuli.

If the argument you're trying to make here is that plants can suffer, then you're failing pretty miserably. You're relying on loose interpretation and imprecise language more than any actual scientific evidence.

Bose discovered the use of electrical signalling in plants, also indicated in the video you showed earlier. Again, his interpretations of the experimental results are suspect.

Putting this into an evolutionary context, you'd have to wonder why a plant would respond positively to affection. This is a hurdle that Bose (nor any other botanist) has ever been able to pass.

Also, music itself is a physical stimulus: patterned compression waves. No awareness is required for it to have a potential effect on plant physiology.

Backster's "study" was also widely panned among scientific circles for his sloppy methodology, calling into question the results of his experiments.

Also, I don't think the results have been successfully replicated. The Mythbusters gave it a shot, too. It was a fun episode. Not a scientific source, granted, but if you're at all interested:

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/09/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html

This can be achieved entirely through hormonal responses. Yet again, none of these responses require any actual perception of pain, nor do they require any self-awareness.

I never argued that they were incapable of responding to their environment. Where did I ever say they couldn't? I also never argued that they were "lifeless."

You seem intent upon misinterpreting nearly everything I say.

For the record: you specifically claimed that plants can FEEL through the use of NERVE receptors. The context of your claim seemed to imply that plants can suffer, i.e., can perceive pain. This is the claim with which I take issue.

The studies above clearly state plants can feel pain. Are you contradicting them?

 

[Alex_Spider]

...do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?

No Mr. "Genius". Will you teach me?

 

[Anita18]

Well if u don't believe the studies then OK. I personally find eating meat disgusting foremost and aistheticly bad and then for health reasons. What do you mean by your population? Ar u chinese?

Yes, I'm Chinese. I don't know any vegan Chinese. If you go to a Chinese grocery and ask for vegan stuff, they will look at you like and ask, "But don't you want it to taste good?"

If there IS a Chinese family not eating meat, it's because they can't afford it.

So IMO, people thinking that Chinese folk are all about plants and stuff, don't know any Chinese people. Beef is not that high on our list though. It's usually poultry or pork or seafood.

And yeah, scientists disagree on studies all the time. My boss recounts fisticuffs at academic meetings similar to what we can have here.

 

[Doctor Evo]

The studies above clearly state plants can feel pain. Are you contradicting them?

I am contradicting the interpretations of some of the experimental results, yes. The ability to respond to external stimuli is not necessarily the same thing as feeling pain, and these investigators are either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring that distinction.

Data are data, and they are what they are, and they are perfectly valid (assuming - and this is important - a proper and valid experimental method/procedure), but this does not necessarily mean that our interpretations of those data are valid. Even seasoned scientists and researchers misinterpret their data.

It happens more than you'd think.

In any case, these investigators are failing to make important distinctions and are using imprecise language, perhaps to sensationalize their results.

The Bill Williams comment is a prime example. The results were stated one way, and his interpretation was a wild deviation from those results.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Yes, I'm Chinese. I don't know any vegan Chinese. If you go to a Chinese grocery and ask for vegan stuff, they will look at you like and ask, "But don't you want it to taste good?"

If there IS a Chinese family not eating meat, it's because they can't afford it.

So IMO, people thinking that Chinese folk are all about plants and stuff, don't know any Chinese people. Beef is not that high on our list though. It's usually poultry or pork or seafood.

And yeah, scientists disagree on studies all the time. My boss recounts fisticuffs at academic meetings similar to what we can have here.

lol. Sure scientific researches differ all the time and something new emerges from the old ideas. That's why i said earlier i don't like eating meat for aesthetic reasons mostly.just like i wouldn't ever be sexually attracted to little children.
But that's just me t:

 

[Doctor Evo]

No Mr. "Genius". Will you teach me?

What the hell are they teaching you in school?

Happy reading. Go, learn, my little one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[Alex_Spider]

I am contradicting the interpretations of some of the experimental results, yes. The ability to respond to external stimuli is not necessarily the same thing as feeling pain, and these investigators are either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring that distinction.

Data are data, and they are what they are, and they are perfectly valid (assuming - and this is important - a proper and valid experimental method/procedure), but this does not necessarily mean that our interpretations of those data are valid. Even seasoned scientists and researchers misinterpret their data.

It happens more than you'd think.

In any case, these investigators are failing to make important distinctions and are using imprecise language, perhaps to sensationalize their results.

The Bill Williams comment is a prime example. The results were stated one way, and his interpretation was a wild deviation from those results.

Fair enough then..