Carnivorous plants are plants that derive some or most of their nutrients from trapping and consuming animals or protozoans, typically insects and other arthropods. — Wikipedia
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. — Wikipedia
I want the discussion, if one unfolds, to be on veganism and/or the tit-for-tat principle - — TheMadFool
Huge tracts of the forests in South America have been lost at the hands of the expanding soya industry. People protecting the forest, including Indigenous Peoples and local activists, have been intimidated, attacked and even killed.
Eating a pig is atrocious. — Shawn
I wouldn't say it's tit-for-tat. Humans have the capacity to reason about their diet. Plants do not. Nor animals. — emancipate
I miss bacon though. Lots of bacon. — 180 Proof
Well, lefties always insists on "equality" so .... — Apollodorus
But I'm not entirely sure about the pain-based argument for veganism. Do eggs experience pain when eaten by humans? — Apollodorus
plant cultivation like soy beans can be detrimental for the environment: — Apollodorus
Why bother? Besides, it's the wrong question.
Plants are nourished by photosynthesis; animals, however, survive by devouring plants or devouring other animals or even by cannibalizing their own kind. So, except plants, the living devour the dead - carcasses (& organic detritus), raw or cooked - which belongs to the background, or embodiment, of all ethical concern and therefore itself cannot be an ethical concern; thus, how (or whom!), rather than what, we eat is a matter of ethics (e g. the industrialized meat & dairy industry and, thereby, its meat & dairy products).
Eventually, vat-grown meat (not just 'plant-based meat' substitutes) will moot the question because its process (A) will not torture and kill any animals and (b) will not degrade the environment remotely on the scale of animal (over)farming. (Also, plant-based diary and @home DIY hydro- & aqua- ponics kits are becoming more widely available ...)
Until then, however, my industrial meat products diet will remain "unjustified" because veganism, etc I find undernourishing and makes me miserable. Life's a grind enough and way too short to be withered away by any arbitrary ascesis ... :death: :flower: — 180 Proof
They eat us and so why not eat them. — TheMadFool
If the above makes sense then this too should make sense: Animals eat humans. — TheMadFool
If you think eating plants is acceptable because we have carnivorous plants then, you shouldn't have any qualms about being nonvegetarian for there are carnivorous animals. — TheMadFool
2. A justification for eating plants is tit for tat: plants eat animals and so why not eat them too? — TheMadFool
Venus fly traps don't eat us. The plants we eat never eat us. — khaled
Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large. — TheMadFool
Imagine someone says this: You shouldn't have any qualms about being racist towards black people for there is a minority of racist people who are black — khaled
That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame. — TheMadFool
Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large.
— TheMadFool
Is photosynthesis also a form of reason? Stretching the definition of reason thin here. Plants do not make a conscious decision about what to eat. Or so it seems. — emancipate
You would (hopefully) tell that person they’re wrong. What would you say to them if they asked you to unpack?
That’s what I would say to you. — khaled
That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame.
— TheMadFool
True. But it shows that veganism can be bad for the environment and the animals (and humans) inhabiting it. — Apollodorus
Kindly tend to my original request. — TheMadFool
You should at least attempt to figure it out yourself, but if you want me to spell it out for you:
Discriminating against a group for the actions of individuals makes no sense.
"That black guy just shot a man. This justifies shooting all black people"
This is the logic you're employing for animals and plants — khaled
Nonsense. We eat meat for the same reason we use petrolium in combustion engines – much higher energy density than plant-matter and wood/coal, respectively. No other reason, Fool. Vegan / vegitarian diet is, however, healthier than carnivorous (or pescatarian) diet and more suitable for us now that we're anatomically on this side of 'the large forebrain explosion' facilitated, maybe even caused, by our h. sapiens ancestors 'adopting' a significant meat-based diet (much more cooked than raw) hundreds of millennia ago. — 180 Proof
"That black guy just shot a man. This justifies shooting all black people"
This is the logic you're employing for animals and plants — khaled
So, you mean to say that if plants could think like humans and they eat animals, we should give the nod of approval to the tit-for-tat strategy and eat them? — TheMadFool
No one advocates eating all animals and plants. — Apollodorus
Besides, eating is a necessity. — Apollodorus
This is not my logic — TheMadFool
Animals eat humans. So, why should humans not eat animals? — TheMadFool
Yes it is. Your argument is that since some animals eat us, this justifies us eating all animals. Makes no sense. — khaled
No. Some animals eat humans. This doesn’t justify eating all animals.
Lions eat us, this doesn’t justify eating cows. — khaled
I already said that tit-for-tat doesn't apply in this situation because humans tend to operate on a higher level of cognition than our vegetative friends (although maybe that's debatable).
What you're describing is akin to taking anger out on an inanimate object. "That curb stubbed my toe so I'm going to destroy it. Tit-for-tat!". More like twit-for-twat. — emancipate
I have by rejecting the "tit-for-tat strategy" premise as nonsense or, at best, a non sequitur with respect to why humans eat meat.Care to take a stab at that, please! — TheMadFool
I have by rejecting the "tit-for-tat strategy" premise as nonsense or, at best, a non sequitur with respect to why humans eat meat. — 180 Proof
I'm not a therapist. :sweat: — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.