Jump to content

Captain Kohli turns vegan, feels it has improved his game


Singh bling

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

Err Yes! Care to explain?

simple. 
The idea that killing animals is wrong because they can feel pain but killing plants is not wrong because they cannot feel pain, is a massive assumption. 

its practically racism on the level of kingdoms in biology, where we are simply going by our ability to discern reaction from kingdom animalia (owing to being a part of it and therefore, much closer related to it) over that of kingdom plantae and dismissing the latter. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As such, the only moral angle to food i can credibly find, is the jain diet: no animals killed, no plants killed either. Ie, no root vegetables. I know it doesnt happen in practice (where several non-tuberous plants are also killed at harvest) but atleast, its theoretically possible. 

As such, i simply do not associate any moralism to killing anything and eating it. To kill to eat something, is innate to us and its our biology. Saying eating meat is wrong on moral level is as denial of species homo sapien's biological nature, as saying bi-pedal-ism is wrong.  We simply dont have to subject the being to unnecessary suffering before we kill it and eat it. 

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vegetarian, vegan arent based on no harm principle. Its less harm, its unavoidable to completely not harm others.

 

So choose the less evil side, as the no evil side maybe impossible. That applies in politics greatly as NOTA can help the more evil side. Or in other words the best available option...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, someone said:

Vegetarian, vegan arent based on no harm principle. Its less harm, its unavoidable to completely not harm others.

 

So choose the less evil side, as the no evil side maybe impossible. That applies in politics greatly as NOTA can help the more evil side. Or in other words the best available option...

how is it less evil to kill a goat than a monkey ? or is it less evil to kill a plant, because it doesnt scream than a rat that squeals ?!

You are simply equating more/less evil with what you can percieve a living being's ability to express pain or suffering. 

 

if plants do feel, which we are seeing a growing evidence for, then what makes it less evil than killing a cow or a pig or a chicken or a fish ?!


I will give you a very simple analogy: two babies are being cut to pieces. one is a regular baby. the other has no voice box and paralysis. Ie, the second baby cannot really scream or wriggle as u cut it. Does the second baby suffer less ? This principle, applied to any animal and now, with growing evidence with plants, simply should tell you that if we see evidence of traumatic response to pain, its pretty much the same thing for THOSE creatures. Our ability to percieve it or not via our senses ( which will ALWAYS be biassed towards kingdom animalia, as we are PART of kingdom animalia, so our bodies and responses will be far similar to it)  should not be confused with what is less/more harm done. 

 

killing plants = less harm done is quite literally saying less harm = what our senses tell us, screw the limitations of our senses and the objective possibility of sensations that are outside of our sensory perception. 

 

We have a brain. Our research is telling us, that plants show adaptive behaviour. they change their bodily functions only when certain creatures are eating them, revert back to normal when its a seperate creature. 

They show evidence of memory based learning. 

They show ability to warn each other when one is being eaten or chopped up. 

 

These are all objective bechmarks of cognitive function. How does it happen without a brain ? we simply don't know. Our entire idea of cognition assumes CNS. But at the end of the day, its an assumption. Yet, we are seeing growing evidence of plants displaying CNS attributes without possessing one. As a thinking species, i refuse to consider more/less evil based on just what i can see/touch and hear. 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is another example : the mustard plant shows is eaten primarily by cabbage patch catterpillars. Mustard plants dont want to be eaten, so when this happens, they up the secretion of oil in their leaves, which apparently these caterpillars find distasteful and lower their consumption. Now, we've found through research, that this is a learned behaviour. It doesnt happen immediately in young plants. It takes practice. Just like with an animal taking practice to hunt or run the heck away. Once practiced, you could play a RECORDING of the sound of the cabbage patch caterpillar munching on the leaves of mustard plants and it does the same response. 

This is pretty much the same behaviour in animals, where you see a tiger roar and run the heck away. Next time you just hear the roar and start running. 

These are signal processing and decision-making attributes - the most base result of any artificial or natural neural nets. Sure, its not as evolved as that of a higher mammal, but i highly doubt its much different (in its output and processing range) than that of a much less capable member of kingdom animalia - like a plankton. 

Where this is happening ? we have no idea. but we have mounting evidence to trash the assumption that CNS is necessary for feeling pain and such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...