[OT] What would PETA have done with respect to Jim Lorentz?

[cdexchange]

I don't have a source for you (or time to look one up right now), but I remember from my college days that the difference in the amount of land needed to produce non-renewable animal protein (there is renewable animal protein, such as eggs & milk) versus the amount needed to produce vegetable protein is a very large one.

Yup.

[korab rules]

Actually, many of them are fed corn and soybeans in addition to grass, but I should have said "vegitation" or "plant-life" instead of "vegetables".

 

I know, I was being a smart ass.

 

I, for one, will never stop eating animals. They are delicious. Plants are just as sentient as animals. Just because plants don't have cute brown eyes and can't mewl piteously as my shotgun blast ends their life doesn't mean they are less entitled to live than Bambi.

 

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

 

And more seriously, why do we have canines and incisors and the digestive system we do rather than flat grinding teeth and a four chambered stomach system designed to digest cellulose? Lets face it, by design, we are omnivorous.

[cdexchange]

I, for one, will never stop eating animals. They are delicious. Plants are just as sentient as animals. Just because plants don't have cute brown eyes and can't mewl piteously as my shotgun blast ends their life doesn't mean they are less entitled to live than Bambi.

 

 

Not sure if you are being serious here. If you are, then that is a very interesting point of view. Without a brain or central nervous system, I don't believe that they are capable of suffering, and are definitely not sentient. I guess you're probably kidding though... B-)

 

 

And more seriously, why do we have canines and incisors and the digestive system we do rather than flat grinding teeth and a four chambered stomach system designed to digest cellulose? Lets face it, by design, we are omnivorous.

 

 

We evolved that way.

[korab rules]

Not sure if you are being serious here. If you are, then that is a very interesting point of view. Without a brain or central nervous system, I don't believe that they are capable of suffering, and are definitely not sentient. I guess you're probably kidding though... B-)

 

I am being serious - Plants react to stimuli, just as we do - just because they don't have a brain or central nervous system doesn't mean they aren't sentient. Take the venus flytrap, responding to the stimuli of a fly on its flower. Or the manner in which a plant's pores on its leaves open and close in response to daylight and water conditions, or the manner in which a plant chooses to grow more leaves or roots, dependent upon perceived competition for resources. Sentient means conscious - capable of feeling and perception. Responding to stimuli is how we differentiate someone (or thing) that is conscious versus unconscious.

 

Perhaps plants don't feels pain the way we do, but they are no less alive and sentient. I just love the way vegetarians differentiate between the types of living beings to justify their beliefs and sense of superiority.

 

 

 

 

We evolved that way because we are designed, in part, to eat meat. Glorious red meat. Delicious, hot off the grill, still red and bloody in the middle meat.

 

Fixed.

[Eleven]

Please let's not turn this into a design vs. evolution thread.

[korab rules]

Please let's not turn this into a design vs. evolution thread.

 

 

Not design vs. evolution, I don't do religion. This is about what constitutes a living, sentient being; the scientific definition vs. the vegetarian's definition.

 

By the way, I am not accusing CDX of being a veggie, as he has said he is not. Its more a response to the theoretical veggie argument, which I have never quite understood. I don't care what other people eat, why do they care so damn much what I eat?

 

Come to think of it, has anyone in this thread claimed to be a veggie?

[Eleven]

Not design vs. evolution, I don't do religion. This is about what constitutes a living, sentient being; the scientific definition vs. the vegetarian's definition.

 

By the way, I am not accusing CDX of being a veggie, as he has said he is not. Its more a response to the theoretical veggie argument, which I have never quite understood. I don't care what other people eat, why do they care so damn much what I eat?

 

Come to think of it, has anyone in this thread claimed to be a veggie?

 

Cool; look back at the language used and you'll see why I was worried.

 

All life is precious. Tasty life gets eaten. That's why eggplants have more rights, with respect to my kitchen, than cows do.

[cdexchange]

I am being serious - Plants react to stimuli, just as we do - just because they don't have a brain or central nervous system doesn't mean they aren't sentient. Take the venus flytrap, responding to the stimuli of a fly on its flower. Or the manner in which a plant's pores on its leaves open and close in response to daylight and water conditions, or the manner in which a plant chooses to grow more leaves or roots, dependent upon perceived competition for resources. Sentient means conscious - capable of feeling and perception. Responding to stimuli is how we differentiate someone (or thing) that is conscious versus unconscious.

 

Perhaps plants don't feels pain the way we do, but they are no less alive and sentient. I just love the way vegetarians differentiate between the types of living beings to justify their beliefs and sense of superiority.

 

 

 

 

Hmm...interesting take. I've always thought of sentience more as self-awareness. By that definition most animals would not even qualify, let alone plants. But yeah your definition is accurate too, and that would probably mean that many plants are indeed sentient. I'd never thought of that before.

 

I'll bet they've never had this discussion on Hockeybuzz :thumbsup: