MuffinShroomMan said:

You saying that pain isnt just a creatures reaction to that pain... is a subjective thought.

Me saying that pain IS just a creatures reaction to that pain.... is an objective thought.

No idea where the bold and underlined bit are coming from.

---

Quote:

You guessing that the plants are not sentient... and also that they cannot feel pain.... are also subjective here....

We have no idea if plants feel some sort of "pain". They definitely cannot feel what you and I feel when shit goes to our cerebral cortex and gives us "pain" and then we respond with creating more or less mental "pain" and eventually have an ending "feeling" of that "pain"....

But are you telling me something isn't lost when that plant dies? It was alive..... now its not.

I dunno.... I guess I just see things differently than you.

---

Quote:

Really? You're going to tell me why we came up with the word sentient then right? Since I'm definitely wrong and it definitely wasn't made to describe the feelings humans experience..... it was for something else.

I agree it happens to describe non human things... hence why I was talking about plants being sentient.... I assumed we agreed animals were.... otherwise it'd be a shitty argument.

But that definitely doesnt mean I'm wrong by itself. The word sentient MOST LIKELY was invented to describe human feelings.

---

MuffinShroomMan said:

I dunno if you enjoy just trolling people and leading them around or what have you.... but I have no problem with it. Got shit else to do.

---

Ran-D said:

Plants are definitely NOT "non-sentient", that is a ridiculous statement that really IS comparable to people saying the world is flat. We simply don't understand how they perceive the world yet.

---

Quote:

Really? You're going to tell me why we came up with the word sentient then right? Since I'm definitely wrong and it definitely wasn't made to describe the feelings humans experience..... it was for something else.

I agree it happens to describe non human things... hence why I was talking about plants being sentient.... I assumed we agreed animals were.... otherwise it'd be a shitty argument.

But that definitely doesnt mean I'm wrong by itself. The word sentient MOST LIKELY was invented to describe human feelings.

---

MuffinShroomMan said:

"We did not just make up the word to describe us. Sentient means the ability to feel. This does not only describe humans. It describes non-human animals too."


remember saying this sentence? or too lost in your own bullshit to remember it?

If youre gonna tell me when I'm wrong in specific instances.... I expect you to admit it as well.

You were telling me WHEN and HOW the word was INVENTED and how WRONG I was for making a general ASSUMPTION.

If youre gonna sit over there and discuss.... and say you arent arguing semantics or you arent trolling..... iunno. I dislike the method you use to speak. I feel as if you change what youre saying at the convo goes. I am pretty high though.

---

MuffinShroomMan said:

And I realize that the thing I'm pointing out is stupid and small... but its the only way to beat people like you.

You clearly forgot or changed your mind inside your head.... that we were talking about why the word sentient was created and what the words use was originally intended for.... and noticed the convo moving elsewhere... and went with questioning the sentient life of a plant... whether or not it can feel.

And heres where you did a bullshit thing.... you used your OWN failure against me.

That is called.... bullshit.


You skipped the whole "Ah.... wait a second there" process.... and just made yourself right the whole time.

---

MuffinShroomMan said:

And I suppose all we can infer from this convo is...


I think specifically eating plants and not meats is silly because they are both living creatures and have the same significance.... and also believe it oculd be possible that plants are sentient.... we just dont understand their perspective yet.


You think eating plants is okay because there is no central nervous system and no scientific way to prove a plant feels "pain". You assume animals feel more than just the chemical reaction of "pain" and find empathy in this. You see plants as non-sentient and by that logic alone choose plants as okay to kill.




Now you define my thoughts then define yours.

---

hmmn said:

Is it just me, or is PS&P plagued by stoners who can't remember a topic long enough to stay on it?   Anyway, just to answer the original question:

I'm a vegetarian who eats ethically produced dairy & eggs (organic pastured dairy, homegrown eggs only).  My primary motivation for eating this way is because I don't want to cause suffering, and animal captivity and slaughter cause a lot of suffering.

I don't volunteer my reasons for vegetarianism to others - I only share if somebody else brings it up.  I'm quite honest about my views when asked, though; I don't eat animals because I know it causes a huge a mount of suffering, and I don't want to contribute to that.  People who eat meat usually become very uncomfortable when I say that, and occasionally quite hostile.  It doesn't bother me because I'm speaking from my heart and doing what I believe is for the best.

I rarely share more than my personal reason for not eating animals - that I don't want to hurt them.  To me that's the whole point - I don't want to hurt anybody if I can avoid it, and animals are somebody too.  So I don't eat animals.  Most people seem to understand that easily enough, feel uncomfortable and guilty, and move the conversation along at full speed!

Also...it hardly ever comes up except among friends.  I've never been bothered by somebody in a restaurant etc....I just ask for a such-and-such a dish with tofu & no meat and leave it at that.  At a party or whatever, I'll just eat whatever doesn't have meat; if I can, I'll cook some dank vegetarian food and bring it to share.  If I'm offered something with meat in it, I just say "no, thanks."  I have never in my life felt the need to say "I don't eat meat" unless asked directly: "do you eat meat?"

---

clock_of_omens said:

Ran-D said:

Plants are definitely NOT "non-sentient", that is a ridiculous statement that really IS comparable to people saying the world is flat. We simply don't understand how they perceive the world yet.

---

There is no evidence that they perceive the world in any way similar to us, or that they even really perceive the world at all as opposed to reacting based on stimuli.

---

MuffinShroomMan said:

Well its hard to describe a beautiful flower without saying pretty... and its hard to describe a filthy pig without saying disgusting. But nice deflection there.

---

"Beautiful" and "filthy" are also subjective words and they should have no bearing on how we treat our fellow beings. I would disagree with any ethics which said we should kill ugly people simply because we can, and they're ugly.

But nice deflection on your part.

Ran-D said:

clock_of_omens said:

Ran-D said:

Plants are definitely NOT "non-sentient", that is a ridiculous statement that really IS comparable to people saying the world is flat. We simply don't understand how they perceive the world yet.

---

There is no evidence that they perceive the world in any way similar to us, or that they even really perceive the world at all as opposed to reacting based on stimuli.

---

No evidence that you know about.***

---

Exactly.


---
Like I said, being a vegetarian because one is interested in ending suffering makes no sense. Grow up boys and girls, the world survives by everyone eating everyone else - it's a fact of our life. (energy can not be created or destroyed - only transferred)


0000
To answer your question to the OP:

From a sociology point of view, what you are engaging in would be considered deviant by our culture because our cultural norms that we are taught disagree with what you are doing. Most of your friends will not understand what you are doing. They will look at you and unconsciously see that you lack the internal controls needed to survive in our culture and impose there own external controls over you to prevent any more deviance with you. But there is good news for you. We live in America and you are allowed to do things outside the cultural norms without being killed. So my advice, tell people to fuck off and face the fact that you will be judged by everyone unless you are with other vegetarians. The facts suck but thats how the game is.


look: I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to psychedelics but psychedelics are deemed illegal. If I went around letting everyone know I love shrooms, pot, mdma, etc then I would be seen as deviant by our cultural norms.

MuffinShroomMan said:

Sentient is a latin word that means feel. That is the meaning of the word. That is the reason that the word was invented. Perhaps at the time, they only applied it to humans. I will grant you that possibility. However, like I said, it is irrelevant to the current conversation. It is a semantic argument, one that once again you started.


Done.

If you think I started this semantic arguing.... youre not worth my time any more.

---

Quote:

All I have been doing for pages is to prove you were.

---

Quote:

Sentient does not mean to feel. In this instance.... it describes the ability to perceive..... and WHERE that MEANING comes from.... MOST LIKELY described HUMAN emotion. Like you finally admitted here.

---

Quote:

And instead of you letting me have that.. 2 pages ago.. you decided to inform that no.... sentient was invented for something else.

You did however start this almost with admitting you were doing this.... but chose to say I started it instead..... so im just not interested in reading more.

---

MuffinShroomMan said:

And I already covered my tracks for your argument that sentient comes from a different word. Its an argument..... about.... words. Whatever sentient originally meant is obviously what I was talking about. I dont care if we used the words "ookah ook ook" to describe sentient.... they mean the same thing

---

MuffinShroomMan said:

You are literally telling me you dont argue semantics..... while arguing semantics

---

Ran-D said:

clock_of_omens said:

Ran-D said:

Plants are definitely NOT "non-sentient", that is a ridiculous statement that really IS comparable to people saying the world is flat. We simply don't understand how they perceive the world yet.

---

There is no evidence that they perceive the world in any way similar to us, or that they even really perceive the world at all as opposed to reacting based on stimuli.

---

No evidence that you know about.***

---

clock_of_omens said:

Ran-D said:

clock_of_omens said:

Ran-D said:

Plants are definitely NOT "non-sentient", that is a ridiculous statement that really IS comparable to people saying the world is flat. We simply don't understand how they perceive the world yet.

---

There is no evidence that they perceive the world in any way similar to us, or that they even really perceive the world at all as opposed to reacting based on stimuli.

---

No evidence that you know about.***

---

Please present me with some evidence then.

---