Three years of autism/schizophrenia research destroyed by

[newpolitics]

I can't speak for Ernie, but I'd like to answer this.

You use speciesism as though it is a negative, as though we should consider all life equal and not grant more weight to any particular species over another.

... And?

This is pretty much the point where I came in before. We had some good thoughts but I don't believe the question ever got an answer. That being: what is the basis for the viewpoint that humans are superior to other species? Is there any logical justification at all? I have yet to hear one.

Our ability to think and reason. We are intellectually superior to other species to varying degrees. People almost always use the ability to think as a basis for value of life; it is why this argument rarely occurs with plants; plants cannot think, therefore people do not place as much value upon their lives as they do for animals.

As I said before, I think anyone who places any amount of value upon life differentiates between the value of different species. If that weren't the case, how could you function with the vast amounts of living creatures dying around you and inside you on a constant basis? So, if you place more value upon animal life than plant life, it's obvious to me you consider intelligence a measure of value for life. That being the case, as usual, it is simply a matter of the degree to which you make that part of your judgement.

Intellectual capacity is irrelevant to moral consideration. If this were the case, then you should be moral towards computers. Sentience (the ability to suffer) is the only precondition necessary for moral consideration. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals are worth our moral consideration.

Speciesism is a negative, just as racism or sexism is a negative. It is the elevating of one groups interests over the other. This is not rationally justified. In racism, this happens between two different ethnic groups of humans. In speciesism, it is between two different species. All animal species have inherent interests, such as avoiding pain and death, and increasing pleasure and life. We have no rational justification for considering our interests over that of another species. Using the "we are more intelligent" argument is a non-sequitur, since intelligence is not required to experience suffering.

 

[newpolitics]

you use a word like "speciesism" and call someone else a lunatic?

Dismissed!

What is your problem with the word "speciesism"?

It's a word invented by nuts like you who want to assign equal status to mice and monkeys. We are human beings. WE are the top of the food chain pal, the epitome of Darwinian evolution. When mice and monkeys pay taxes, I'll consider giving them status.

How friggin hypocritical can you get. You won't eat animals, but you'll tear leaves of a lettuce head and eat them without a second thought.
Animal testing, which you hysterically refer to as vivisection is not nearly as barbaric as making little balls of fruit with a melon baller and then eating chunks of honeydew flesh.

Are honey dew melons sentient? No. Animal testing isn't vivisection?By definition, it is. Ive never understood the attitude of people who wanted to torture animals, or justify it in any way.

No one is trying to assign equal status between humans and other species. This is a strawman. All I am asking is that we have equal respect to their interests.

 

[Ernie S.]

What is your problem with the word "speciesism"?

It's a word invented by nuts like you who want to assign equal status to mice and monkeys. We are human beings. WE are the top of the food chain pal, the epitome of Darwinian evolution. When mice and monkeys pay taxes, I'll consider giving them status.

How friggin hypocritical can you get. You won't eat animals, but you'll tear leaves of a lettuce head and eat them without a second thought.
Animal testing, which you hysterically refer to as vivisection is not nearly as barbaric as making little balls of fruit with a melon baller and then eating chunks of honeydew flesh.

Are honey dew melons sentient? No. Animal testing isn't vivisection?By definition, it is. Ive never understood the attitude of people who wanted to torture animals, or justify it in any way.

No one is trying to assign equal status between humans and other species. This is a strawman. All I am asking is that we have equal respect to their interests.

I have a friend, one of the smartest people I've ever met. (IQ 192) who said, "I might consider being a vegetarian if I could be certain that lettuce doesn't scream when you tear off a leaf.

By your PC definition, animal testing is vivisection, but that is a made up definition, probably by the same idiot that coined the non-word "speciesism"

Strawman???? The very word "speciesism" implies that I am bigoted because I deny mice and monkeys equal status and makes my argument valid. Sorry pal. You lose again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't respect your opinion, so lets not get sidetracked with your idiotic interpretation of reality. As a vegan, I don't support the systematic torture I animals in all industry, INCLUDING vivisection, so any attempts at maligning vegans in the context this discussion is simply an ad hominem to avoid addressing salient points. Try again buddy. You'll get it.

Did I say something that led you to believe that I care about your respect?

Vivisection is surgical experimentation on living beings, neurobiologists do not do that type of thing, neither do drug researchers. You trying to equate what they do means you are a brain dead zombie, which you confirmed when you said you are vegan. Fee free to rehect science and medicine as much as you want, just don't expect anyone to actually care what you think.

All experiments using animals are done using live animals. This constitutes vivisection. A dead animal would be no good for a six week drug trial. Vivisection is no longer defined by its etymological roots as merely a surgical operation on a living being, but is broadly applied, as any experimentation on an animal.

Freedictionary.com:

Main Entry: viv·i·sec·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌvi-və-ˈsek-shən, ˈvi-və-ˌ\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin vivus + English section
Date: 1707
1 : the cutting of or operation on a living animal usually for physiological or pathological investigation ; broadly : animal experimentation especially if considered to cause distress to the subject 2 : minute or pitiless examination or criticism

All experiments with animals are done on animals? Really? Are you going to tell me that all experiments using crash test dummies use crash test dummies next?

Since you are the type of idiot that thinks of Wikipedia as a valid source let me use that to educate you.

Vivisection (from Latin vivus, meaning "alive", and sectio, meaning "cutting") is defined as surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism, typically animals with a central nervous system, to view living internal structure. The term is sometimes more broadly defined as any experimentation on live animals (see animal testing.) The term is often used by organizations opposed to animal experimentation but is rarely used by practicing scientists. Human vivisection has been perpetrated as a form of torture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivisection

The only people that use that means cutting on living creatures to denote experiments that do not involve cutting are idiots with an agenda, people that ignore science, and that put their belief in the mythical belief that animals are sentient over the evidence. That is irrational.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I stand for the consideration of animal interests as being valid am worthy of respect. As it is, humans care nothing for the interests of animals and place themselves above them so as to disregard these interests, and use animals for personal ends. This is speciesism. You can personally attack me all you want. It doesn't change this sad reality you defend. I simply don't understand why you would attack those who stand up for the non-suffering of animals. Do you go around kicking dogs And cats whenever you seem them? Why not? Their suffering shouldn't matter to you. Funny that draw a line between animals and say that certain animals deserve no consideration and is okay to torture them while others deserve our undying love and to be taken into our homes. Even more odd is the lack of logical connectivity between whether I donate to a boxer fund and animals in laboratories being harmed. Mind explaining that one? You can't, because it is illogical, hence a logical fallacy. You are doing good in your hatred of people that actually care about ALL animals. Lol. I kill babies? You're a lunatic.

you use a word like "speciesism" and call someone else a lunatic?

Dismissed!

What is your problem with the word "speciesism"?

It is a term only religious nuts use.

 

[Montrovant]

... And?

This is pretty much the point where I came in before. We had some good thoughts but I don't believe the question ever got an answer. That being: what is the basis for the viewpoint that humans are superior to other species? Is there any logical justification at all? I have yet to hear one.

Our ability to think and reason. We are intellectually superior to other species to varying degrees. People almost always use the ability to think as a basis for value of life; it is why this argument rarely occurs with plants; plants cannot think, therefore people do not place as much value upon their lives as they do for animals.

As I said before, I think anyone who places any amount of value upon life differentiates between the value of different species. If that weren't the case, how could you function with the vast amounts of living creatures dying around you and inside you on a constant basis? So, if you place more value upon animal life than plant life, it's obvious to me you consider intelligence a measure of value for life. That being the case, as usual, it is simply a matter of the degree to which you make that part of your judgement.

Intellectual capacity is irrelevant to moral consideration. If this were the case, then you should be moral towards computers. Sentience (the ability to suffer) is the only precondition necessary for moral consideration. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals are worth our moral consideration.

Speciesism is a negative, just as racism or sexism is a negative. It is the elevating of one groups interests over the other. This is not rationally justified. In racism, this happens between two different ethnic groups of humans. In speciesism, it is between two different species. All animal species have inherent interests, such as avoiding pain and death, and increasing pleasure and life. We have no rational justification for considering our interests over that of another species. Using the "we are more intelligent" argument is a non-sequitur, since intelligence is not required to experience suffering.

First, I don't think computers can be considered to have intelligence. Not yet, at least. We haven't yet created true AI.

Next, I'm using the term intelligence a bit loosely. Intelligence is a requirement for sentience, at least in this context. I'm not interested in various definitions of sentience that don't have anything to do with this conversation. So yes, intelligence is relevant to moral considerations.

Morality is not the same as rationality. Moral judgements are not always based on rationality.

As to a rational justification to elevate humanity above other forms of life, the obvious and simple one is that in doing so, humanity will find it easier to improve itself.

What is the difference between equal respect of other species' interests and equal status?

I'm not opposed to granting at least some animals a measure of respect. On the other hand, I don't feel the slightest remorse about the scorpion I just squished a few minutes ago. I'm not worried about its possible suffering.

 

[newpolitics]

It's a word invented by nuts like you who want to assign equal status to mice and monkeys. We are human beings. WE are the top of the food chain pal, the epitome of Darwinian evolution. When mice and monkeys pay taxes, I'll consider giving them status.

How friggin hypocritical can you get. You won't eat animals, but you'll tear leaves of a lettuce head and eat them without a second thought.
Animal testing, which you hysterically refer to as vivisection is not nearly as barbaric as making little balls of fruit with a melon baller and then eating chunks of honeydew flesh.

Are honey dew melons sentient? No. Animal testing isn't vivisection?By definition, it is. Ive never understood the attitude of people who wanted to torture animals, or justify it in any way.

No one is trying to assign equal status between humans and other species. This is a strawman. All I am asking is that we have equal respect to their interests.

I have a friend, one of the smartest people I've ever met. (IQ 192) who said, "I might consider being a vegetarian if I could be certain that lettuce doesn't scream when you tear off a leaf.

By your PC definition, animal testing is vivisection, but that is a made up definition, probably by the same idiot that coined the non-word "speciesism"

Strawman???? The very word "speciesism" implies that I am bigoted because I deny mice and monkeys equal status and makes my argument valid. Sorry pal. You lose again.

I don't think your friend is very smart. Even if plants do feel pain, a vegan diet would still entail less suffering than a non-vegan one. Also, the fact that he invoked "certainty" to describe phenomenological experience of other beings also makes me doubtful as to his intelligence.

Vivisection is the complete manipulation of animals to achieve scientific ends, without their interests being considered at all. I already discussed the distinction between the words etymological root and its current usage, and I consider this adjustment justified, given the barbarity of animal testing today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is your problem with the word "speciesism"?

I can't speak for Ernie, but I'd like to answer this.

You use speciesism as though it is a negative, as though we should consider all life equal and not grant more weight to any particular species over another.

... And?

This is pretty much the point where I came in before. We had some good thoughts but I don't believe the question ever got an answer. That being: what is the basis for the viewpoint that humans are superior to other species? Is there any logical justification at all? I have yet to hear one.

Do you use antibiotics? Do you eat? If you do, you value one species over another. Why do you think it is logical?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

... And?

This is pretty much the point where I came in before. We had some good thoughts but I don't believe the question ever got an answer. That being: what is the basis for the viewpoint that humans are superior to other species? Is there any logical justification at all? I have yet to hear one.

Our ability to think and reason. We are intellectually superior to other species to varying degrees. People almost always use the ability to think as a basis for value of life; it is why this argument rarely occurs with plants; plants cannot think, therefore people do not place as much value upon their lives as they do for animals.

As I said before, I think anyone who places any amount of value upon life differentiates between the value of different species. If that weren't the case, how could you function with the vast amounts of living creatures dying around you and inside you on a constant basis? So, if you place more value upon animal life than plant life, it's obvious to me you consider intelligence a measure of value for life. That being the case, as usual, it is simply a matter of the degree to which you make that part of your judgement.

Intellectual capacity is irrelevant to moral consideration. If this were the case, then you should be moral towards computers. Sentience (the ability to suffer) is the only precondition necessary for moral consideration. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals are worth our moral consideration.

Speciesism is a negative, just as racism or sexism is a negative. It is the elevating of one groups interests over the other. This is not rationally justified. In racism, this happens between two different ethnic groups of humans. In speciesism, it is between two different species. All animal species have inherent interests, such as avoiding pain and death, and increasing pleasure and life. We have no rational justification for considering our interests over that of another species. Using the "we are more intelligent" argument is a non-sequitur, since intelligence is not required to experience suffering.

Sentience is not the ability to suffer. Plants can suffer, and even send out distress signals under the proper circumstances. Sentience is the ability to experience subjective consciousness. It is the ability to look at a sunset and see the future, or the past. It is the ability to feel a touch and taste the sky. In other words, it cannot be defined because it is unique to each and every person who experiences it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is your problem with the word "speciesism"?

It's a word invented by nuts like you who want to assign equal status to mice and monkeys. We are human beings. WE are the top of the food chain pal, the epitome of Darwinian evolution. When mice and monkeys pay taxes, I'll consider giving them status.

How friggin hypocritical can you get. You won't eat animals, but you'll tear leaves of a lettuce head and eat them without a second thought.
Animal testing, which you hysterically refer to as vivisection is not nearly as barbaric as making little balls of fruit with a melon baller and then eating chunks of honeydew flesh.

Are honey dew melons sentient? No. Animal testing isn't vivisection?By definition, it is. Ive never understood the attitude of people who wanted to torture animals, or justify it in any way.

No one is trying to assign equal status between humans and other species. This is a strawman. All I am asking is that we have equal respect to their interests.

if you define sentience as the ability to suffer then honeydews are sentient. You being a speciest, will probably try to deny this so that you can continue your selfish practice of killing them solely so that you can survive a little bit longer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are honey dew melons sentient? No. Animal testing isn't vivisection?By definition, it is. Ive never understood the attitude of people who wanted to torture animals, or justify it in any way.

No one is trying to assign equal status between humans and other species. This is a strawman. All I am asking is that we have equal respect to their interests.

I have a friend, one of the smartest people I've ever met. (IQ 192) who said, "I might consider being a vegetarian if I could be certain that lettuce doesn't scream when you tear off a leaf.

By your PC definition, animal testing is vivisection, but that is a made up definition, probably by the same idiot that coined the non-word "speciesism"

Strawman???? The very word "speciesism" implies that I am bigoted because I deny mice and monkeys equal status and makes my argument valid. Sorry pal. You lose again.

I don't think your friend is very smart. Even if plants do feel pain, a vegan diet would still entail less suffering than a non-vegan one. Also, the fact that he invoked "certainty" to describe phenomenological experience of other beings also makes me doubtful as to his intelligence.

Vivisection is the complete manipulation of animals to achieve scientific ends, without their interests being considered at all. I already discussed the distinction between the words etymological root and its current usage, and I consider this adjustment justified, given the barbarity of animal testing today.

How does a vegetarian diet denote less suffering than a non vegetarian diet?

 

[newpolitics]

I have a friend, one of the smartest people I've ever met. (IQ 192) who said, "I might consider being a vegetarian if I could be certain that lettuce doesn't scream when you tear off a leaf.

By your PC definition, animal testing is vivisection, but that is a made up definition, probably by the same idiot that coined the non-word "speciesism"

Strawman???? The very word "speciesism" implies that I am bigoted because I deny mice and monkeys equal status and makes my argument valid. Sorry pal. You lose again.

I don't think your friend is very smart. Even if plants do feel pain, a vegan diet would still entail less suffering than a non-vegan one. Also, the fact that he invoked "certainty" to describe phenomenological experience of other beings also makes me doubtful as to his intelligence.

Vivisection is the complete manipulation of animals to achieve scientific ends, without their interests being considered at all. I already discussed the distinction between the words etymological root and its current usage, and I consider this adjustment justified, given the barbarity of animal testing today.

How does a vegetarian diet denote less suffering than a non vegetarian diet?

Is this a serious question?

 

[newpolitics]

Our ability to think and reason. We are intellectually superior to other species to varying degrees. People almost always use the ability to think as a basis for value of life; it is why this argument rarely occurs with plants; plants cannot think, therefore people do not place as much value upon their lives as they do for animals.

As I said before, I think anyone who places any amount of value upon life differentiates between the value of different species. If that weren't the case, how could you function with the vast amounts of living creatures dying around you and inside you on a constant basis? So, if you place more value upon animal life than plant life, it's obvious to me you consider intelligence a measure of value for life. That being the case, as usual, it is simply a matter of the degree to which you make that part of your judgement.

Intellectual capacity is irrelevant to moral consideration. If this were the case, then you should be moral towards computers. Sentience (the ability to suffer) is the only precondition necessary for moral consideration. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals are worth our moral consideration.

Speciesism is a negative, just as racism or sexism is a negative. It is the elevating of one groups interests over the other. This is not rationally justified. In racism, this happens between two different ethnic groups of humans. In speciesism, it is between two different species. All animal species have inherent interests, such as avoiding pain and death, and increasing pleasure and life. We have no rational justification for considering our interests over that of another species. Using the "we are more intelligent" argument is a non-sequitur, since intelligence is not required to experience suffering.

Sentience is not the ability to suffer. Plants can suffer, and even send out distress signals under the proper circumstances. Sentience is the ability to experience subjective consciousness. It is the ability to look at a sunset and see the future, or the past. It is the ability to feel a touch and taste the sky. In other words, it cannot be defined because it is unique to each and every person who experiences it.

Yes, you dumbbucket , sentience does entail the ability to suffer, and has nothing to so with intelligence. The wealth of definitions you posted confirmed this, or have you forgotten what you yourself posted? Sentience is necessary for suffering. Intelligence is not.

Show me evidence that plants suffer. The fact that they send out distress calls and communicate chemically in fantastic ways does note they suffer. Now you are anthropomorphizing plants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think your friend is very smart. Even if plants do feel pain, a vegan diet would still entail less suffering than a non-vegan one. Also, the fact that he invoked "certainty" to describe phenomenological experience of other beings also makes me doubtful as to his intelligence.

Vivisection is the complete manipulation of animals to achieve scientific ends, without their interests being considered at all. I already discussed the distinction between the words etymological root and its current usage, and I consider this adjustment justified, given the barbarity of animal testing today.

How does a vegetarian diet denote less suffering than a non vegetarian diet?

Is this a serious question?

You made the claim, I want to know what evidence you have to back it up, or is it simply based on unsubstantiated beliefs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Intellectual capacity is irrelevant to moral consideration. If this were the case, then you should be moral towards computers. Sentience (the ability to suffer) is the only precondition necessary for moral consideration. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals are worth our moral consideration.

Speciesism is a negative, just as racism or sexism is a negative. It is the elevating of one groups interests over the other. This is not rationally justified. In racism, this happens between two different ethnic groups of humans. In speciesism, it is between two different species. All animal species have inherent interests, such as avoiding pain and death, and increasing pleasure and life. We have no rational justification for considering our interests over that of another species. Using the "we are more intelligent" argument is a non-sequitur, since intelligence is not required to experience suffering.

Sentience is not the ability to suffer. Plants can suffer, and even send out distress signals under the proper circumstances. Sentience is the ability to experience subjective consciousness. It is the ability to look at a sunset and see the future, or the past. It is the ability to feel a touch and taste the sky. In other words, it cannot be defined because it is unique to each and every person who experiences it.

Yes, you dumbbucket , sentience does entail the ability to suffer, and has nothing to so with intelligence. The wealth of definitions you posted confirmed this, or have you forgotten what you yourself posted? Sentience is necessary for suffering. Intelligence is not.

Show me evidence that plants suffer. The fact that they send out distress calls and communicate chemically in fantastic ways does note they suffer. Now you are anthropomorphizing plants.

The first thing you have to understand is that sentience is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. In other words, it only exists in the minds of people that think nature is subject to their belief system.

The second thing you have to understand is that there is more than one type of philosophical viewpoint. You want to believe that animals are sentient because it justifies you being a vegan. That is fine, just remember that you have absolutely justification for your fantasy, that animals are not really sentient, and that you really are wrong that sentience is the ability to suffer.

 

[Montrovant]

Intellectual capacity is irrelevant to moral consideration. If this were the case, then you should be moral towards computers. Sentience (the ability to suffer) is the only precondition necessary for moral consideration. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals are worth our moral consideration.

Speciesism is a negative, just as racism or sexism is a negative. It is the elevating of one groups interests over the other. This is not rationally justified. In racism, this happens between two different ethnic groups of humans. In speciesism, it is between two different species. All animal species have inherent interests, such as avoiding pain and death, and increasing pleasure and life. We have no rational justification for considering our interests over that of another species. Using the "we are more intelligent" argument is a non-sequitur, since intelligence is not required to experience suffering.

Sentience is not the ability to suffer. Plants can suffer, and even send out distress signals under the proper circumstances. Sentience is the ability to experience subjective consciousness. It is the ability to look at a sunset and see the future, or the past. It is the ability to feel a touch and taste the sky. In other words, it cannot be defined because it is unique to each and every person who experiences it.

Yes, you dumbbucket , sentience does entail the ability to suffer, and has nothing to so with intelligence. The wealth of definitions you posted confirmed this, or have you forgotten what you yourself posted? Sentience is necessary for suffering. Intelligence is not.

Show me evidence that plants suffer. The fact that they send out distress calls and communicate chemically in fantastic ways does note they suffer. Now you are anthropomorphizing plants.

Is it not having intelligence that divides animals from plants? Couldn't we conclude, then, that since plants do not suffer but animals do, that it may be that intelligence is what allows for suffering?

 

[eots]

I have a friend, one of the smartest people I've ever met. (IQ 192) who said, "I might consider being a vegetarian if I could be certain that lettuce doesn't scream when you tear off a leaf.

By your PC definition, animal testing is vivisection, but that is a made up definition, probably by the same idiot that coined the non-word "speciesism"

Strawman???? The very word "speciesism" implies that I am bigoted because I deny mice and monkeys equal status and makes my argument valid. Sorry pal. You lose again.

I don't think your friend is very smart. Even if plants do feel pain, a vegan diet would still entail less suffering than a non-vegan one. Also, the fact that he invoked "certainty" to describe phenomenological experience of other beings also makes me doubtful as to his intelligence.

Vivisection is the complete manipulation of animals to achieve scientific ends, without their interests being considered at all. I already discussed the distinction between the words etymological root and its current usage, and I consider this adjustment justified, given the barbarity of animal testing today.

How does a vegetarian diet denote less suffering than a non vegetarian diet?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE9uNTtnL7g]Life Feeds On Life - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lovebears65]

animal rights activists.

And no news about it. Amazing. The true anti-science bloc: progressive nutbags:

"
Activists occupied an animal facility at the University of Milan, Italy, at the weekend, releasing mice and rabbits and mixing up cage labels to confuse experimental protocols. Researchers at the university say that it will take years to recover their work.
Many of the animals at the facility are genetic models for psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia."

"
Michela Matteoli, a neurobiologist who works on autism and other disorders and lost most of her own research in the attack, says that she found some research students crying in the disrupted facility on Monday morning.
“It will take three people at least a year to build up the colonies we had of mouse models of different psychiatric diseases,” she says."

"...animal-rights and environmental extremists have proven to be be capable of lots of damage and widespread, documented criminal activity. Yet they rarely get the press, say, a picture of a rude sign at a Tea Party rally might get. Maybe our more mainstream animal-rights friends could muster some loud denunciations of such tactics to prevent further losses of valuable research. "

Animal-rights activists wreak havoc in Milan laboratory : Nature News & Comment
Animal-rights activists trash years of autism research in Milan lab raid « Hot Air

Wow, what do liberals have to say for themselves? Being the sole champions of science (as they proclaim) they destroy it. That's horrible.

Yet they see no problem of using stem cells of aborted babies.

 

[newpolitics]

Sentience is not the ability to suffer. Plants can suffer, and even send out distress signals under the proper circumstances. Sentience is the ability to experience subjective consciousness. It is the ability to look at a sunset and see the future, or the past. It is the ability to feel a touch and taste the sky. In other words, it cannot be defined because it is unique to each and every person who experiences it.

Yes, you dumbbucket , sentience does entail the ability to suffer, and has nothing to so with intelligence. The wealth of definitions you posted confirmed this, or have you forgotten what you yourself posted? Sentience is necessary for suffering. Intelligence is not.

Show me evidence that plants suffer. The fact that they send out distress calls and communicate chemically in fantastic ways does note they suffer. Now you are anthropomorphizing plants.

The first thing you have to understand is that sentience is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. In other words, it only exists in the minds of people that think nature is subject to their belief system.

The second thing you have to understand is that there is more than one type of philosophical viewpoint. You want to believe that animals are sentient because it justifies you being a vegan. That is fine, just remember that you have absolutely justification for your fantasy, that animals are not really sentient, and that you really are wrong that sentience is the ability to suffer.

Ironically, now you are philosophizing into obscurity, as you are simply misconstruing epistemic boundaries to mean that animals can not suffer. This is fallacious and highly biased. Just as you can not prove another mind exists and solipsism isn't true, neither can I prove that animals can suffer, with certainty. But so what? This isn't about certainty. This is about what is likely. I don't need to the word "sentience" to show that animals feel, and therefore can suffer. Whether you want to call them sentient is irrelevant. It's just a word to model reality. Realty shows that animals possess nerves just like we do, and a brain to process that information, just like we do. Therefore, to say they don't feel pain, is simply illogical and I am wondering is your evidence that animals don't feel pain. Further corroborating this anatomical evidence is the behavioral evidence, who show, just as humans do, visible signs of agony and suffering when in pain. Further corroborating all of this is the evolutionary necessity for any animal to need to be able to detect pain and pleasure in order to survive, In order to know what to stay away from (predators) and what to be attracted to (sex, food). You seem to want to burden me with evidence, which I have just provided. Now provide me with evidence, given the facts of our anatomical similarities with animals regarding pain-messaging pathways, that would suggest animals have no ability to feel pain.

 

[newpolitics]

Sentience is not the ability to suffer. Plants can suffer, and even send out distress signals under the proper circumstances. Sentience is the ability to experience subjective consciousness. It is the ability to look at a sunset and see the future, or the past. It is the ability to feel a touch and taste the sky. In other words, it cannot be defined because it is unique to each and every person who experiences it.

Yes, you dumbbucket , sentience does entail the ability to suffer, and has nothing to so with intelligence. The wealth of definitions you posted confirmed this, or have you forgotten what you yourself posted? Sentience is necessary for suffering. Intelligence is not.

Show me evidence that plants suffer. The fact that they send out distress calls and communicate chemically in fantastic ways does note they suffer. Now you are anthropomorphizing plants.

Is it not having intelligence that divides animals from plants? Couldn't we conclude, then, that since plants do not suffer but animals do, that it may be that intelligence is what allows for suffering?

No, it is not simply intelligence that divides animals from plants. Plants do demonstrate an "intelligence" of sorts, in the form of extremely sophisticated interaction with their surroundings, and certain animals have barely any intelligence at all. One of the biggest defining features for animals is that they are heterotrophs, and need to feed on other matter. Plants, even carnivorous ones, do not. They get it from the sun. Carnivorous plants can feed on other matter when necessary, but if they are getting enough sun, don't need it.

It is demonstrably and categoricAlly wrong that intelligence has anything to do with suffering. The two parts of the brain responsible for pain reception and intelligent thoughts are distinct. The ability to add 2+2 is handled by an entirely different region of the brain. Animals don't have neocortex like humans, but they all possess the "reptilian brain" (including us) which allows pain sensation. Evolutionary, it is completely illogical to say humans can feel pain, but no other animals before us could.