Pigs as organ donors

[floo]

You can kill a vegetable insofar as you can bring an end to the processes that sustain its life - cutting a lettuce or not watering a pot plant, for example.

True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.

[BeRational]

You can kill a vegetable insofar as you can bring an end to the processes that sustain its life - cutting a lettuce or not watering a pot plant, for example.

I also have empathy for houseplants, and my garden plants as well.

I tend and care for them, and wish them no harm.

I feel sorry for dinner plates as well, and use ones at the bottom so they do not feel left out. Crazy I know, but I seem to imbue the plate with sadness at never being picked.

[BeRational]

True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.

Probably, but they can react with the environment to a degree.

[Shaker]

True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.

Precisely!

[Shaker]

I also have empathy for houseplants, and my garden plants as well.

I tend and care for them, and wish them no harm.

I feel sorry for dinner plates as well, and use ones at the bottom so they do not feel left out. Crazy I know, but I seem to imbue the plate with sadness at never being picked.

So you seem to have a theory of mind with regard to plates, but not to cows.

[BeRational]

Precisely!

Arbitrary.

It lives.

[Shaker]

Arbitrary.

It lives.

#80.

[BeRational]

So you seem to have a theory of mind with regard to plates, but not to cows.

I like cows, and want them treated well, before they become food.

I do not like broccoli and let it live.

[BeRational]

#80.

Not sure what message 80 has to add.

You make an arbitrary choice and seem to think I should agree.

I don't.

So what?

[Shaker]

I like cows, and want them treated well, before they become food.

I do not like broccoli and let it live.

So nonsentient broccoli is higher up your ladder of moral concern (even if negatively, since you don't like it) than a sentient cow.

[Shaker]

Not sure what message 80 has to add.

That life alone isn't the morally relevant category.

You make an arbitrary choice and seem to think I should agree.

I don't.

So what?

#90.

[BeRational]

So nonsentient broccoli is higher up your ladder of moral concern (even if negatively, since you don't like it) than a sentient cow.

Yes.

You seem to think your arbitrary line, is better than mine.

I think mine is better than yours.

So what?

[Shaker]

Yes.

You seem to think your arbitrary line, is better than mine.

I think mine is better than yours.

So what?

#80 & #90.

[BeRational]

That life alone isn't the morally relevant category.
#90.

I say it is.

Now what do we do.

The only reason you do not want it to be, is because it makes your arbitrary line wrong.

[Shaker]

I say it is.

Now what do we do.

The only reason you do not want it to be, is because it makes your arbitrary line wrong.

My line doesn't entail complicity in entirely needless suffering to those things which can suffer - yours does.

Perhaps you would now like to contradict yourself and argue that there's nothing wrong with suffering? You say you want cows treated well - why? Why does it matter to you if they're not?

[BeRational]

My line doesn't entail complicity in entirely needless suffering to those things which can suffer - yours does.

Perhaps you would now like to contradict yourself and argue that there's nothing wrong with suffering?

I do not want the animals to suffer.

I want a clean humane kill.

If the animal was happy all it's life, and died without suffering, would you eat meat?

[Shaker]

I do not want the animals to suffer.

Why not? What is it about suffering, what quality is it that you do not want the animals to experience/undergo it?

I want a clean humane kill.

Which doesn't happen.

If the animal was happy all it's life, and died without suffering, would you eat meat?

No.

[BeRational]

Why not?
Which doesn't happen.
No.

So why did you mention suffering as that has nothing to do with your position.

I gave you a happy animal that did not suffer and you still would not eat it, so you point about suffering was not relevant.

Perhaps it does not always happen that animal are killed as humanely as I would wish, but in the UK?

Other stuff is not ideal in my life, but I still do it. I drive cars which kill people.

This whole thing goes round and round, because you have a preference that I do not share.

My favourite colour is blue, and yours is red.

so what?

[Shaker]

So why did you mention suffering as that has nothing to do with your position.

Excuse me?

I gave you a happy animal that did not suffer and you still would not eat it, so you point about suffering was not relevant.

I have no desire to eat meat however produced. There's no nutritional/dietary need for it - it's now established beyond all and any doubt that varied and well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are not just entirely healthy but confer positive health benefits.

This however is a side issue to suffering, which as a thoroughgoing sentiocentrist is the centre of moral concern.

Perhaps it does not always happen that animal are killed as humanely as I would wish, but in the UK?

What about the UK?

Other stuff is not ideal in my life, but I still do it. I drive cars which kill people.

Accidentally, not intentionally.

This whole thing goes round and round, because you have a preference that I do not share.

I disagree: it goes round and round because you don't seem to read or take on board any of the arguments put to you. The most anybody gets back is a petulant "So what?" Like this:

My favourite colour is blue, and yours is red.

so what?

My preference in colours has nothing to do with suffering.

P. S. Seriously - change your user name.

[floo]

Probably, but they can react with the environment to a degree.

What do you mean by react?

I can't believe this thread has nearly 120 replies already, and only started this morning.

[Shaker]

What do you mean by react?

Photosynthesis. Phototropism.

I can't believe this thread has nearly 120 replies already, and only started this morning.

It does tend to bring people out fighting!

[Robbie]

I am sure many people wouldn't.  Death isn't that frightening to all people that they would do anything to live. 

Would the people in air crash kill some weak person unlikely to live....and eat him?

It was grim. Pity there was so much publicity about that, eating human flesh is nothing to boast about. Though I wasn't in their shoes of course.

[Robbie]

Oh Lucky Man?

http://rjbuffalo.com/oluckyman/VTS_01_4-00.18.15.255.jpg

Holby City, Rick & Abra (who was played by Rick Mayall) transplanted a pig's kidney into a man.

[BeRational]

Excuse me?
I have no desire to eat meat however produced. There's no nutritional/dietary need for it - it's now established beyond all and any doubt that varied and well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are not just entirely healthy but confer positive health benefits.

This however is a side issue to suffering, which as a thoroughgoing sentiocentrist is the centre of moral concern.
What about the UK?
Accidentally, not intentionally.
I disagree: it goes round and round because you don't seem to read or take on board any of the arguments put to you. The most anybody gets back is a petulant "So what?" Like this:
My preference in colours has nothing to do with suffering.

P. S. Seriously - change your user name.

I am the one being rational and you are not.

We both draw arbitrary lines, but only I seem to realise it.

You mentioned suffering as being relevant, but when offered meat that had not suffered, you still say you would not eat it. So suffering is not relevant to your position.

You do not like the thought of eating meat, which is your choice.

I do, so we have a difference of opinion, exactly like the choice of favourite colour.

You cannot show my position to be wrong, not can I yours, as there is no right and wrong here.

I am not asking you to eat meat, but i am quite happy to. Actually mainly chicken and turkey, with only accassional red meat, as a good omnivore that I am.

[Shaker]

I am the one being rational and you are not.

I don't think I was the one who referred to using dinner plates from the bottom of the stack in case they're sad at not being so used (#101).

We both draw arbitrary lines, but only I seem to realise it.

I don't consider suffering to be arbitrary. What you think of suffering we can't tell, since I asked you (#116) but you didn't respond.

You mentioned suffering as being relevant, but when offered meat that had not suffered, you still say you would not eat it. So suffering is not relevant to your position.

Suffering is the top, bottom, centre, be-all and end-all of my position. I have no need or desire to eat even so-far mythical suffering-free meat, but that's a side issue.

As I have previously said (#118) 

You do not like the thought of eating meat, which is your choice.

I do, so we have a difference of opinion, exactly like the choice of favourite colour.

Nothing like favourite colour (#118) - do you read nothing?

You cannot show my position to be wrong, not can I yours, as there is no right and wrong here.

Not to anybody who by their own admission doesn't care about suffering, no (#83).

I am not asking you to eat meat, but i am quite happy to. Actually mainly chicken and turkey, with only accassional red meat, as a good omnivore that I am.

Contradiction in terms to me.