kamitis wrote:I don't respect beliefs about flat earth in same way i respect something else with more evidence but i am not going to use rude language but if i am not interested to calmly listen his arguments, ask questions about them and research them i will likely just ignore person and his arguments and try change discussion topic explaining i am not interested in topic or do things what is worth my time more leaving person for that time.
See my post here:
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=11&t=257
You don't seem to understand that I'm not just
not interested in pseudoscience, pseudoscience is dangerous.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."
Currently, you're the do nothing type.
If you see somebody doing something wrong, or saying something wrong, you should speak up.
And if they won't listen, like you aren't listening now, then speak louder.
PARTICULARLY if they're a member of your group. A vegans, we have a responsibility to say something when another vegan does something that represents us in a bad light and makes us look irrational.
You are a pseudoscience
apologist, and that's unacceptable. It's unacceptable as an atheist, and it's unacceptable as a vegan.
If you were a carnist Christian, I might just leave you be, because you can make Christians look bad all day long and it won't affect me. But when you make veganism look bad, that does affect me.
I'm trying to educate you. When you refuse to be educated from rational arguments, I'm left with two options:
1. Do nothing. Ignore you, and leave you to do your evil onto the world, spreading these lies without challenge.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."
2. Ridicule and shame you. Since you won't listen to reason, all I can do is insult you, and call you what you are being. Maybe if more people ridiculed ridiculous ideas, and refused to accept them, there would be fewer people out there doing this kind of social evil, spreading these kinds of lies, and presenting apologia for those who do.
You also have two options:
1. Continue doing what you're doing. Continue being a pseudoscience apologist- continue supporting the legitimacy of these ideas. Continue spreading these lies and this kind of scientific ignorance. Continue to endorse these things as reasonable, leading people to seriously consider them. Continue giving veganism a bad name by representing it as woo-friendly and irrational. Continue lending consideration to "plant intelligence" which fuels irrational arguments by carnists in favor of harming animals. And as a result, be hated and mocked, either to your face, or behind your back.
2. Stop this nonsense. Recognize that these things are pseudoscience, and that they deserve no more respect than "flat Earth" theories (which are equally "probable"). Recognize that use of the word "intelligence" as applied to plants is inaccurate, and a dishonest twisting of its actual meaning (which you could research if you wanted to, and is not as subjective as you think). Stop talking about these things, except to disagree with or ridicule them. Stop legitimizing pseudoscience. Be a shining example of a rational vegan who respects real science, and doesn't give Carnists extra ammunition or make the movement look bad. Be respected and accepted as a friend and ally in reason and morality.
kamitis wrote:I believe there should be basic respect even if you massively don't agree with something and if you answer with anger, rude language, not wanting to understand viewpoint it is just useless.
It's not useless. It's called peer pressure. You're doing something bad (pseudoscience apologia), and you should feel bad about yourself for doing it.
If you stop doing that thing, then I will gladly accept you and love you as a friend and ally. It's that simple.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "carrot and stick"?
kamitis wrote:For example you not called me 5x idiot and sent fuck something like @brimstoneSalad but asked questions what i can answer and you understand more my viewpoint.
I called you an idiot because you were being an idiot. It's something you're doing.
You may be an intelligent and compassionate person who is just deeply misguided - I get that - but right now, you're being an idiot by legitimizing pseudoscience. I'm trying to get you to stop that.
I tried to reason with you, you spat it back in my face. Energy has been trying to reason with you too- you're not responding very well to that either. He's nicer than I am though, and more patient, so he'll probably keep trying.
kamitis wrote:If you see my posts before you can see i avoided theses things and my only talk about it was IF statement my first post what not mean much as it is IF statement what seem is massively taken into consideration in this discussion even when it was simple IF statement what can be used to flying unicorns in my basement.
If you really understand that plant intelligence/sentience (FYI, they're the same thing) is on the same order as flying unicorns in your basement, then that's one thing.
That's not how you were talking about it, though. In your original post, and your unacceptable defense of these ideas later on, you were taking them quite seriously. The measurement to your statements was one of seeing them as quite possible.
kamitis wrote:I said plants is intelligent if we see intelligence as x and that not intelligent if we see intelligence as y.
And you're a flying unicorn if we see flying unicorns as x, and not a flying unicorn if we see flying unicorns as y.
That's a useless tautology, and a corruption of proper usage of language.
Anything can be anything if you corrupt the meaning of the word beyond recognition.
People want to corrupt and distort the meanings of words for
political and
ideological reasons. And
shame on you for joining in on that dishonesty on the side of "plants may be intelligent".
You should very well KNOW that hurts animals and reinforces the bad rationalizations of carnists.
The word "Intelligence" doesn't need to be redefined to include plants. That is not useful in any good respect, and it's certainly not helpful to animal rights.
If you decide to change your definition of "intelligence" to include plants, that's an unethical choice on your part, and it departs from normal word usage, as well as scientific usage. It is something for which you should rightly be hated.
Stop trying to change the definition of "intelligence" to include plants.
It weakens the definition of intelligence (to the point that it loses usefulness), which makes it objectively irrational, and it only serves to strengthen the irrational arguments of carnists in favor of eating animals.
You should already understand these things. If you make a choice to do it anyway, that's inexcusable. And no, I will not respect your "right" to define words dishonestly in any way you want.
Plants are not intelligent, by inherent biological fact, and the very definition of intelligence.
You may not redefine intelligence.
kamitis wrote:For example sleep-awake cycle,
That's another
dishonest use for words. Plants are never conscious, they have no wakefulness. They have cycles of varying activity. It can not be legitimately compared to sleep and wakefulness.
As I have explained to you, and you have ignored, the journalists reporting on these things are not scientists, they do not understand the science, and they report things in a very inaccurate way that gets headlines.
"Plants sleep!" will sell tabloids.
"Plants have cycles of varying cellular activity." Will not.
A plant's varying activity is more like the varying activity if your hair follicles, which grow in cycles. They don't have brains with which it engage in sleep or wake to consciousness. They just have periods of comparative cellular dormancy. That's very different.
kamitis wrote:communication with other plants,
Deceptive word usage, again!
kamitis wrote:making defense when get interacted with dangers, interact with other plants/insects different ways, reproduce, interact and explore environment around you
Deceptive, deceptive, deceptive.
kamitis wrote:can be considered intelligent depends from how we see intelligence as they clearly are not passive entities like rock.
No, no it can not.
Rocks aren't such 'passive' entities either. Crystals grow, seed, form structure, elements expand and contract with varying temperature, interact chemically with their environments.
Everything in the environment is active on everything else in some sense. Intelligence it something very different. It's a thing you evidently fail to understand anything about.
Plants are not intelligent- not in the least sense.
Saying they are is a dishonest use of words meant most often as propaganda.
Stop doing it if you want to be liked and respected among vegans.
kamitis wrote:Obviously animal intelligence and plants intelligence is not in same category and is not same overall.
Plants are not intelligent. They are not just
less intelligent. They don't just have a
different kind of intelligence. They have no intelligence whatsoever.
Use a different word to describe it. Intelligence is not the correct word, and it only leads people to misunderstand plant behavior.
The only people who should use the word "plant intelligence" are carnist propagandists who want to undermine and ridicule veganism.
Are you a carnist propagandist? If not, then stop using that word.
kamitis wrote:When people use word plant intelligence it more like new concept NOT taking human like intelligence for complex choices/problem solving and putting it in plants.
It's an entirely different thing. Plants react in the same way our skin cells do- like how your cells produce more melanin when exposed to the sun. This is not intelligence.
kamitis wrote: Similar to when first time concept animal intelligence came out.
No, not at all similar, and stop saying it is. That's extremely dishonest. Stop comparing animals to plants.
Animals have been seen as intelligent for thousands of years, and fit the proper definition of intelligence without changing the meaning of the word one jot. The understanding that humans and animals share basic intelligence predates the English language- humans have only been seen to additionally possess "rationality" (related to imagination in Aristotle's philosophy) which other animals were thought to lack. That has been the norm for over 2,300 years. Today, our understanding of what that means has become a bit more precise and nuanced (related more closely to language), but nothing has dramatically changed. If you care to gain any real understanding on the subject, look at Dennett's creatures, which I wrote about elsewhere on the forum, or which you can Google search yourself.
That many lay people refused to recognize that before, and may now be more open to it, is irrelevant to the fact.
kamitis wrote:
Being able change it more they physics was meaning to being able change how we see word "intelligence" differently easier then for example word "gravity" and society/science will adjust easier to new way we see word "intelligence". Again was not touching topics like plant sentient or plant self-aware.
We don't need to change the way we see intelligence, and we shouldn't. The only purpose that serves is carnist propaganda.
Use a different word.
Plants are not intelligence in any reasonable sense of the word. Saying they are is dishonest, irrational, and a form or propaganda.
kamitis wrote:Maybe it came out very unwanted because people in this community hear arguments like "you kill plants" or "plants is sentient" from some people but i don't mentioned theses things other then in my IF statement at first post.
And I'm saying stop doing that. All you're doing is giving those ideas legitimacy. Stop supporting this stuff. Stop writing apologia for it. Stop using the word "intelligent" with plants, because they are not, and this is a dishonest and deceptive usage of the word.
The way we use words matters. If you're not trying to give people the wrong idea, then stop doing that kind of stuff. Stop sharing those kinds of links, and stop talking about plant intelligence.
It's plant behavior. It's plant reflexes. It's not intelligence- intelligence is about information processing and true learning. Plants can do none of those things (they are only sensitized and engage in complex reflexes without any comprehension or understanding of the world around them).
kamitis wrote:I also don't argued about science fundamentals, changing how society/science see word "intelligent" is not against any science fundamentals.
It's against honesty, and it's against morality. It's for carnist propaganda, and public ignorance and misconception.
It's also not linguistically useful, and it IS scientifically inaccurate. We already have a good understanding of what intelligence is and means. There is no need to completely change the meaning of the word, and it would only cause confusion and problems.
If you find a new kind of thing, then give it a new word if you must. Don't corrupt the normal and accepted, useful, meaning of an existing word.
kamitis wrote:I also tried not touch water memory much because i understand it contradictional just made new research/observable and repeatable experiments but definitely there should new research/experiments be made what might dismiss/verify theses first researches/experiments.
There wasn't any first research/experiments on it. It doesn't exist.
Nobody believes this stuff. There has already been research that has gained a significant enough understanding of water molecules, quantum physics, and thermodynamics that we know "water memory" to be impossible.
This is ignorance on your part of basic scientific principles.
kamitis wrote:On water memory i not said i am right or i believe theses things. I understand it contradictional and considered pseudoscience and agree to that[...]
Then stop talking about it. Stop legitimizing it. And stop trying to excuse, justify, and present apologia for it.
kamitis wrote:however i personally look for information what come out on topic.
Are you also personally looking for information that comes out about flat Earth theory? Because that's just as likely.
Stop legitimizing pseudoscience.
If you really want to learn more about it, how about you ASK me nicely about how water works?
Maybe I'll be nice, and explain some basic chemistry, thermodynamics, and quantum physics to you.
If you really want to understand, and you stop this pseudoscience apologetics you're engaged in, then I may be glad to teach you
why water can have no memory- and then you'll understand.
But you have to be open to it first, and divest yourself of the dogma that water may seriously have memory when every scientific body in the world asserts that is fundamentally impossible.
kamitis wrote:I understand there is no reputable information with scientific experiments except few from Institute for Static and Dynamics for aerospace constructions of the University of Stuttgart (what also might not be on memory but some undiscovered water functions)
NO. There is no
except about it. There is no reputable evidence of water memory of any kind, from anywhere.
But it doesn't matter- because Homeopathy is proven to be false. We KNOW this, because we understand quite well how water works. There are good reasons why it is impossible for water to have memory.
Here's an article looking into that particular claim, and from where the myth originated:
http://www.scilogs.com/in_scientio_veri ... uldnt-die/
kamitis wrote:and what can easy be dismissed if proven wrong
It has been proven wrong. MANY TIMES!
It's wrong. I'm dismissing it. You should be dismissing it too if you have any sense.
That you are not already dismissing it is irrational on your part. Water does not have memory, and it can not have memory. There are very good explanations for why this is, if you had ever bothered to do any actual research on it.
Stop legitimizing these claims by failing to dismiss them in light of overwhelming evidence against them.
Water memory is completely bunk. So is plant intelligence.
You continuing to advocate for these notions undermines veganism, makes vegans look irrational, and it's completely unethical.
