They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. If you want to engage in the conversation, please make an effort to do so in good faith and actually address the arguments. If you’re only going to make basic queries everyone already agrees with, we’re just wasting time and space.
"Aren't plants alive?" is such a bad faith argument that I don't know why you even bother replying. It's legitimately on the level of "internet troll". I eat meat btw, but I wouldn't even entertain someone that pretends there's no difference between a sentient mammal and a stalk of broccoli
You are right, of course. But I have noticed as of late that I sometimes became unkind in my replies, which I don’t like and didn’t use to happen. I want to do better.
Surely the right move here is not to play, but if you don’t get annoyed trolls can’t win either.
The point is that you're still killing that broccoli, not that the two acts have equal moral value. It doesn't normally need to be said but you know, someone was wrong on the internet
Ever ate a carrot? The whole plant has to be "killed". Killing doesn't even make sense in the context of plants, a lot of them can just be cloned from a leaf, stem or root. Where do you draw the line between damaging and killing a plant, the termination of the apical meristem? The plant will stop growing but it can still clone itself, or grow more apical meristems...
This whole argument is absolutely meaningless.
edit: just pointing out I'm not directly replying to you but to the whole thread.
> why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
Pretty sure it is the cow's purpose. Humans first domesticated a wild animal and then with selective breeding cows were "made". That has no weight on ethics tho.
> why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
Clearly you’ve never experienced the sight of animals in a slaughterhouse, as they realise what is happening to the animals in front and begin to panic and violently bellow and push back.
> You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.
That is only true for people who don’t engage in good faith and don’t have a genuine desire to learn and are open to changing their minds. For everyone else, it can and does provide value.
They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. If you want to engage in the conversation, please make an effort to do so in good faith and actually address the arguments. If you’re only going to make basic queries everyone already agrees with, we’re just wasting time and space.
"Aren't plants alive?" is such a bad faith argument that I don't know why you even bother replying. It's legitimately on the level of "internet troll". I eat meat btw, but I wouldn't even entertain someone that pretends there's no difference between a sentient mammal and a stalk of broccoli
You are right, of course. But I have noticed as of late that I sometimes became unkind in my replies, which I don’t like and didn’t use to happen. I want to do better.
Surely the right move here is not to play, but if you don’t get annoyed trolls can’t win either.
The point is that you're still killing that broccoli, not that the two acts have equal moral value. It doesn't normally need to be said but you know, someone was wrong on the internet
Ever ate a carrot? The whole plant has to be "killed". Killing doesn't even make sense in the context of plants, a lot of them can just be cloned from a leaf, stem or root. Where do you draw the line between damaging and killing a plant, the termination of the apical meristem? The plant will stop growing but it can still clone itself, or grow more apical meristems...
This whole argument is absolutely meaningless.
edit: just pointing out I'm not directly replying to you but to the whole thread.
> purpose of being eaten and spread
why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.
> why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
Pretty sure it is the cow's purpose. Humans first domesticated a wild animal and then with selective breeding cows were "made". That has no weight on ethics tho.
Also, this is a ridiculous argument.
If someone raises their human kid “to be eaten”, that would be the purpose of the kid.
Does that make it ok to eat the kid?
Here’s a compromise.
Neither you nor I get to decide what the purpose of another sentient being is.
1 reply →
> why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
Clearly you’ve never experienced the sight of animals in a slaughterhouse, as they realise what is happening to the animals in front and begin to panic and violently bellow and push back.
> You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.
That is only true for people who don’t engage in good faith and don’t have a genuine desire to learn and are open to changing their minds. For everyone else, it can and does provide value.
4 replies →