A Hypothetical For Vegan Input.

[Twizelby]

being that you started this post by writing about the "evidence" of sentience

" I mean they clearly make "choices" (such as the way roots search for water, growing toward light, carnivorous plants etc.) whether they're conscious decisions or not. So to me, it's not that far of a leap to think that they might also feel pain/suffering. Just because we don't know how it could think and feel, doesn't mean that it absolutely can't."

Then posted a video about a plant reacting to stimuli. then ignored my answer to the hypothetical and instead focused on why I rejected the hypothetical

" Although I hate to entertain the hypothetical, you have to use more plants to feed cattle and the environmental aspect of veganism would still make it more ethical to eat vegan. less habitat destruction etc."

The Vegan Atheist started his post with entertaining your hypothetical (he answered your question then expounded) then moved onto why hypotheticals' are not a valid argument.

Then you bemoan what you see as us being upset or offended. we aren't offended we just want to make it abundantly clear that the plant reactions you initially presented to us were nothing more than chemical based reactions. we also all entertained the hypothetical!
of course you casually ignored all of that and will probably selectively read this to play the victim some more. Maybe you should ask why you are writing replies like a screeching child and focused solely on our response to hypothetical arguments. Maybe because the argument you underhandedly want to make, while still maintaining the cowardly position of reluctant "thinking thinker" who is really just "oh so curious about the vegan opinion" on something that is "supported by evidence X Y and Z." you just realized the argument is ignorant and laughable. so now yer butt hurt and need to throw a little tantrum. "I'm just here for you honest opinion BOOHOO" and yer gonna reply to this and selectively cut it all while trying to reinforce that you really are just a curious intellectual who just wanted a hypothetical answered.

If all you want is an answer to a hypothetical don't give supposed evidence to support that hypothetical and then retreat and cry when people answer the hypothetical plus cross examine the evidence you provide.

[Humane Hominid]

Thinker,

You received several direct answers to your useless hypothetical. That you don't like the answers, or that your hypothetical failed to stump anyone, or whatever else you were hoping for, is irrelevant. The challenge was answered.

The question is easily answered with a single sentence, and isn't worth pursuing much beyond that. You might as well ask how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

[TheThinkingThinker]

Thinker,

You received several direct answers to your useless hypothetical. That you don't like the answers, or that your hypothetical failed to stump anyone, or whatever else you were hoping for, is irrelevant. The challenge was answered.

The question is easily answered with a single sentence, and isn't worth pursuing much beyond that. You might as well ask how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you read anything I wrote in the thread? None of it was trying to stump anyone. None of it was dissatisfaction with answers. I only asked like 1 person to even expand on their thoughts. I pretty much said "Thanks for your input " to everyone that answered. It isn't a challenge, and it wasn't meant to be. I don't assume you're an atheist seeing as you clearly think you're god, can read minds, and in fact even know someone's intentions better than they do.

Also, you're right, I did receive several answers, and I very much appreciate them (which I stated). I hope for several more if there's any other angles people have. Everyone is different, so the more different views people share the better. It may be an odd concept to you, but some people like to hear other perspectives, rather than just their own.

[TheThinkingThinker]

My answers are in bold

being that you started this post by writing about the "evidence" of sentience

" I mean they clearly make "choices" (such as the way roots search for water, growing toward light, carnivorous plants etc.) whether they're conscious decisions or not. So to me, it's not that far of a leap to think that they might also feel pain/suffering. Just because we don't know how it could think and feel, doesn't mean that it absolutely can't."

I never said that was evidence of sentience. I specifically put words in there and quotations around words that I just used for lack of better words in hopes that people wouldn't mistake that. I made them bold and underlined so you won't miss them this time.

Then posted a video about a plant reacting to stimuli. then ignored my answer to the hypothetical and instead focused on why I rejected the hypothetical

I posted the video as an example of why I started thinking about the "what if". I never claimed it was evidence that they do. Hence why I said: "Also, I don't know why they would develop that, or even that they did, I'm just saying that it isn't an impossibility that they did. "

" Although I hate to entertain the hypothetical, you have to use more plants to feed cattle and the environmental aspect of veganism would still make it more ethical to eat vegan. less habitat destruction etc."

I didn't ignore it. I specifically said: "Yes your insight does help, I appreciate your input.". It was right there, clear as day in my reply to you.

The Vegan Atheist started his post with entertaining your hypothetical (he answered your question then expounded) then moved onto why hypotheticals' are not a valid argument.

Which is where I, again, clarify that it isn't meant to be any kind of argument. Which is why I criticized your replies, because they were attacking my "argument" after I made it as clear as possible that it isn't an argument, and isn't meant to be. It' is literally just a hypothetical question that I wanted input on from vegans. I figured vegans would know what vegans would do better than people who aren't vegan. Maybe that's a crazy notion or something.

Then you bemoan what you see as us being upset or offended. we aren't offended we just want to make it abundantly clear that the plant reactions you initially presented to us were nothing more than chemical based reactions. we also all entertained the hypothetical!

I never said that their reactions were more than chemical based, I stated several times that it just makes me think of the possibility, and thus sparked the thought of the hypothetical and my curiosity of what vegans would do. I even stated, myself, that I do not believe them to be sentient or that there is any solid evidence to say that they are, or even a non-negligible chance. Also, my "bemoaning" was toward the seemingly hostile attitude of your posts, pointing out that only 1 sentence of your posts were addressing the question. Then I even apologized for being rude, and reacting based on only my assumption of your attitudes. Though, judging by all this, I think I may have been right on your part. Not that it matters to what we're talking about but Humane Hominid didn't answer, he just ranted about my question not being a hypothetical and accused me, as you did, of just trying to sneak in an argument.

Of course you casually ignored all of that and will probably selectively read this to play the victim some more.

I laughed to myself at that, because I didn't even read it before starting all these replies. I figured it would save time to read through and answer at the same time. Just another stack of assumptions to your already towering pile. I guess you missed the several times that I thanked people (you included) for their input and thoughts. Maybe that translates to "I'm ignoring you" in whatever your native language is?

Maybe you should ask why you are writing replies like a screeching child and focused solely on our response to hypothetical arguments. Maybe because the argument you underhandedly want to make, while still maintaining the cowardly position of reluctant "thinking thinker" who is really just "oh so curious about the vegan opinion" on something that is "supported by evidence X Y and Z." you just realized the argument is ignorant and laughable. so now yer butt hurt and need to throw a little tantrum. "I'm just here for you honest opinion BOOHOO" and yer gonna reply to this and selectively cut it all while trying to reinforce that you really are just a curious intellectual who just wanted a hypothetical answered.

Had to laugh to myself again at that last part, just throw it on the pile too I guess. I don't think I even typed in caps anywhere in this thread so "screeching child" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. You seem to be a bit bipolar, first you accuse me of being underhanded, then I clarify several times that I'm just legitimately curious, you apologize for making those (false) assumptions, now you're back to accusing me of being underhanded while nothing has changed since you apologized... Also I'm not sure what you mean by "reluctant". I guess I better clarify again that I don't think there is any solid evidence that plants are sentient, or that I believe they are, or even that there is any reasonable chance that they are. I specifically stated that, you see, but you seem to ignore it every time (odd that you accuse me of ignoring though) to try to push your idea that I'm just a sneaky anti-vegan that's just trying to topple your ideology based on an argument disguised as a hypothetical that I made very clear that I don't believe, or even believe is likely or that there is any solid evidence for. C'mon really? You're attacking me based on shakier assumptions than if I actually believed my hypothetical were true... I mean I just don't get it. Were you like bullied by omnivores as a kid and now, to get your revenge, you're trying to get a forum thread locked by starting unnecessary arguments? I really simply don't care if someone is a vegan. I have absolutely 0 problem with vegans. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

If all you want is an answer to a hypothetical don't give supposed evidence to support that hypothetical and then retreat and cry when people answer the hypothetical plus cross examine the evidence you provide.

I never claimed any of it as evidence of sentience. All I said was that it made me think of "what if", which is what stirred my curiosity to start this thread. Also, I never got upset that people said the evidence is bad, because I already made it very clear that I don't believe it to be true, or that there is any solid evidence for it. I simply complained that people were dwelling on debunking my "argument" and attacking the idea of hypotheticals, when I'm not saying that any of it is true (I even stated I believe that it isn't, multiple times) and that I'm not even trying to make any argument against anyone.

Like I said to Humane Hominid, you guys must not be atheists, because you clearly believe that you are the all-knowing god that reads minds, and in fact knows my intentions better than I do.

Now once you're done reading all that (if you even do, seeing as you clearly ignored several things I've already said), you can go read the back and forth replies between me and the other couple people in this thread, and find that, when people are friendly, normal fucking human beings that don't interact with people that they've just met based on negative assumptions, there's 0 negativity, they just answer, I proclaim my gratitude for their thoughts and input. That's it. No arguing, no assumptions, no deep-seeded hate for non-vegans. Just a polite, friendly discussion. Though, I did asked one person to expand on his reply, which he kindly did. How rude of me!

It must be exhausting being that cynical all the time. I don't understand what your problem is. You might actually be the most accusatory, presumptuous person I've ever met in my life (including on the internet), and that's coming from a person who has argued with many religious fundamentalists. And we all know how they can be when it comes to assumptions about atheists. In your other thread you asked for advice about people thinking you're too preachy. After all this, I think "preachy" is far from your top priority of things to work on.

Lastly, if you were correct that I'm just being underhanded and trying to now make excuses because I got caught; Why the hell would I waste my time coming back here? It's anonymous. If you were right, I would have just left and "cut my losses" with no consequence.

If these couple people are a sample of the type of community The Vegan Atheist actually wants around here, I don't see this forum having a great future.


P.S.: To be clear, none of this is aimed at The Vegan Atheist, itsund3rmykilt, or dan1073. You guys were friendly, normal people. As stated at toward the end lol.

[TheVeganAtheist]

Hi everyone, lets keep things civil. Lets address issues not each other. I want this forum to be an open exchange of ideas, but there is no need to make this personal. This comment is not directed at anyone specific. Lets just keep on point.

[TheThinkingThinker]

Hi everyone, lets keep things civil. Lets address issues not each other. I want this forum to be an open exchange of ideas, but there is no need to make this personal. This comment is not directed at anyone specific. Lets just keep on point.

Agreed. This thread went downhill fast.

[Neptual]

Hi everyone, lets keep things civil. Lets address issues not each other. I want this forum to be an open exchange of ideas, but there is no need to make this personal. This comment is not directed at anyone specific. Lets just keep on point.

Agreed. This thread went downhill fast.

It may have gotten off topic but this thread has the most replies to it so success some where is due (I guess).

[Humane Hominid]

Thinker,

You need to understand that your "hypothetical question" looks exactly like an underhanded argument in bad faith that vegans hear about a hundred times a month. We are understandably suspicious when it turns up anywhere.

It's also worth noting that your behavior on this thread, at the beginning, did nothing to disavow us of that impression. When your hypothetical was answered, you responded by offering links to try and shore up the veracity of the claims and assumptions underlying your hypothetical. This behavior usually indicates that the interlocutor is not "just curious" and is instead trying to make an argument or play gotcha, without wanting to be held accountable for it.

Finally, you're the one who got snarky and incredulous first. I call your attention to your post at the top of Page 2, where you scolded people for only answering with a single sentence and explaining to you the principle of why hypotheticals aren't terribly interesting.

The two respondents you quoted in that post, Twizleby and VA, both answered your hypothetical in rational, reasoned tones, in good faith. There was nothing personal about their responses at all. Your reaction was, "gee, you guys sound real fun to be around."

So, you're not blameless here. By the second page of the thread, you had started to be insulting to the vegans while claiming you didn't want to offend anyone and had no agenda.

Again, we're used to this. There's an old saying that if something walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it's probably a duck. By page 2, you were walking and sounding like the proverbial duck. So, of course, we concluded that you were.

[Humane Hominid]

That said, I will offer an olive branch and snip my original reply to include only my direct response to your hypothetical:

there is no evidence that plants are sentient and feel pain. Evolutionarily speaking, it would make no sense for them to do so, and at the biochemical level, their cellular communication pathways are far too slow to have the processing power of even the simplest animal.

Thus, I find the hypothetical uninteresting.

[TheThinkingThinker]

Hi everyone, lets keep things civil. Lets address issues not each other. I want this forum to be an open exchange of ideas, but there is no need to make this personal. This comment is not directed at anyone specific. Lets just keep on point.

Agreed. This thread went downhill fast.

It may have gotten off topic but this thread has the most replies to it so success some where is due (I guess).

Haha, I like the optimism! Always a silver lining. Then again as my dad always says "Every silver lining is just filled with a dark cloud" lol.