I have no idea if you're joking, or you have a severe lack of understanding. For now, I'll pretend it's the second.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:Actually no. The issue with any SUBJECT is people. No matter what evidence you provide many will still deny it. This is a fact and flaw among humans as a whole. Also I don't see why speak as if I had said animals are not sentient. I never said it or suggested it. So getting butt hurt over nothing shows little of your ability to pay attention and not assume something simply based on that you miss understood it.
The issue with the subject is people? What are you even talking about? Plants are not sentient, and animals are. It's proven, and if someone denies it he/she is ignorant or an idiot.
Some people deny it. So what? What are you asserting with this?
'Also I don't see why speak as if I had said animals are not sentient'
I have not spoken as if you said animals are not sentient. I said that yours is a fallacious comparison.
Fallacious comparison = saying that you said animals are not sentient? Do you even
read what I write?
That's a big strawman.
ThAgnosticAtheist wrote:Again you didn't even read what I said or understood it. I said THEY could OUT SIDE of HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. We think for, we think we know everything, but the truth is we are using human perception to understand the world around us. So this mean humans bases sentience off our selves. I simply stated that they could have it, but it is beyond our understanding or knowing.
Do you speak English? Yes?
Sentience has a certain meaning, like all words. Sentience means something, and it doesn't mean other things.
Something either is sentient, or is not.
It has a defined meaning, and you can't modify that meaning as you please.
And it's obiously included in human knowledge, since we use that word. So, if you want to mean something else, use another word.
Plants are not sentient.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:Again your basing this on human perception and how we see and perceive intelligence.
Again, you're mistaken. The word 'intelligence' has a meaning.
If you want to mean something else, use another word, and try to explain yourself.
Intelligence as defined by the vocabulary and our language, plants do not have it.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:I believe anything is possible, just improbable.[...]This is why you cannot fathom the idea that a plant could be sentient or intelligent because of human perception and knowledge. However, they could be sentient and even intelligent on their own level (non-human). Intelligence is not limited to knowing, building, making, etc. we has a species see it that way because we consider ourselves to be sentient and intelligent.
You're just showing that you don't know the meaning of 'sentience', and that you don't know how language works.
Untill sentience will mean sentience, plants do not have it.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:thebestofenergy wrote:That is a fallacious comparison. God has neither been proven nor disproven.
Animal sentience has been proven, multiple times by science, and it's even self-evident, so it'd be absurd to deny it.
Actually it isn't. Mankind has proven many things and people still deny the evidence to those cases. You simply failed to grasp the point I was making.
And you failed to grasp that it IS a fallacious comparison.
Some people also deny that the earth is not flat. It doesn't matter what moonbats say, the point still stands that animal sentience has been proven, while God has neither been proven or disproven, so it's a fallacious comparison.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:And what would you like some loaded philosophical explanation that you still would not accept?
You're just being condescending; that's probably what you're best at.
It seems that you're incapable of giving an explanation of your beliefs.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:I don't see a reason to change? Which I did mention I eat less meat. Everything in moderation.
You don't see a reason to change? Then why do you eat less meat?
Billions of sentient beings dying and enormous environmental damage is not enough for you to change? What would it require for you to change?
'Everything is moderation'
Ah yes, it sounds good.
Rape? Yes, in moderation. Child abuse? Why not? if it's in moderation, it's OK, since everything should be in moderation.
What about bullying? Well, if it's in moderation, it should OK, right? Stealing too, I guess.
If you agree that eating meat is wrong, then you should understand that eating less of it, is just the lesser of the two evils, not the most ideal option.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:Is it to convenient for you to respect my decisions and opinion instead of trying to belittle me?
Belittle? Not respecting?
What are you talking about? I asked a question, trying to understand you.
TheAgnosticAtheist wrote:So your going to be that Vegan and act just like you closed minded meat eating counter parts on your position?
Do you know what a question mark is? Do you know what it means?
And you've not even answered my question.