The former, by definition, because the vast majority of society does the latter. Extremists always try to reframe themselves as the moderate ones and say mainstream society are the extremists instead, so I’m not surprised you’re saying this.
Just because it’s always said doesn’t mean it isn’t sometimes true. Can’t you think of examples of views that were fringe but became the moral baseline?
Can’t you think of examples of views that were fringe but became the moral baseline?
Yes, I can, but I can’t think of any that were extreme despite being the most widely held views in a given society, because that’s an oxymoron. Once something becomes a widely held view it is no longer extreme.
I remember reading that some species of plants release a specific chemical or audio frequency (I can’t remember which) in response to being cut down, and this chemical is detected by other nearby plants that cause them to become stiffer or something along those lines. Whether that meana the plants feel pain or not, there isn’t anything conclusive. I think it would be pretty hard to feel pain without a nervous system, but its possible that what constitutes pain doesn’t need a nervous system or pain receptors at all. Im not a scientific expert, I just tried to be funny.
The only true way is to live exclusively off of mushrooms or mushroom fed livestock. That way NO plants will be harmed. (The fungus deserves it, so no moral compunctions)
I always remember that plant in Japan that was hooked up to a computer that would get sad if no one talked to it, but will be full of excited energy anytime someone spoke to it.
Now I apologise to a tree if I need to take a leak on it.
my comment was about the word “creature” which implies a creator. It’s understandable that it may be difficult to classify living beings if the criteria is “behavior”
I don’t think anyone other than you thinks the word “creature” implies a creator, so you making that distinction really only gives power to creationists rather than taking it away.
Moreover, even if it does come from creatura, the argument can easily be made that creatures beget (create) other creatures. It seems a very silly and tenuous thing to suddenly muddle a conversation over.
“beget” doesn’t mean “create”.
i don’t muddle the conversation. Creationism is related fundamentally to any conversation about vegetarianism, veganism, speciesism &c.
Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.
My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.
Plants are also living creatures, but don’t tell the Vegans.
If you want to minimize plant death, going vegan is still the right move.
Most of the crops we grow go to feeding animals that people eat.
This is definitely the best take on veganism.
I don’t really care about minimizing plant death. I’m not Vegan or Vegetarian, nor will I be in the future. I just made a joke.
They told me Lemmy would be more leftist, why am I still seeing 0 IQ vegan jokes
That’s lemmy.ml. I think most of us just want this to be a place with less politics and extremism on either side because it’s exhausting.
What’s more extreme: not wanting to harm and exploit animals or killing and exploiting them to use them as products?
I think it’s pretty clear.
The former, by definition, because the vast majority of society does the latter. Extremists always try to reframe themselves as the moderate ones and say mainstream society are the extremists instead, so I’m not surprised you’re saying this.
Just because it’s always said doesn’t mean it isn’t sometimes true. Can’t you think of examples of views that were fringe but became the moral baseline?
Yes, I can, but I can’t think of any that were extreme despite being the most widely held views in a given society, because that’s an oxymoron. Once something becomes a widely held view it is no longer extreme.
We want to be rid of the poop wars
Plants also react to being harmed, so it’s arguable they don’t feel pain.
I remember reading that some species of plants release a specific chemical or audio frequency (I can’t remember which) in response to being cut down, and this chemical is detected by other nearby plants that cause them to become stiffer or something along those lines. Whether that meana the plants feel pain or not, there isn’t anything conclusive. I think it would be pretty hard to feel pain without a nervous system, but its possible that what constitutes pain doesn’t need a nervous system or pain receptors at all. Im not a scientific expert, I just tried to be funny.
Dunno about funny, but insightful and empathetic, yes. Cheers!
plants are not “creatures”, neither are animals.<br> both are indeed living evolutures ;)
Do you often write in HTML?
there was something wrong about formatting. Without the HTML code my lines were all huddled into one long line 🤷
deleted by creator
A person who eats meat is responsible for more plant consumption than a person who eats vegan. Livestock don’t live on sunshine and air you know.
The only true way is to live exclusively off of mushrooms or mushroom fed livestock. That way NO plants will be harmed. (The fungus deserves it, so no moral compunctions)
I always remember that plant in Japan that was hooked up to a computer that would get sad if no one talked to it, but will be full of excited energy anytime someone spoke to it.
Now I apologise to a tree if I need to take a leak on it.
do you know what anthropomorphism is?
Yeah I do, I anthropomorphise everything lol, I apologized to my door for bumping it with my wood trollie yesterday.
It might not have feelings, but I do and I felt bad.
my comment was about the word “creature” which implies a creator. It’s understandable that it may be difficult to classify living beings if the criteria is “behavior”
I don’t think anyone other than you thinks the word “creature” implies a creator, so you making that distinction really only gives power to creationists rather than taking it away.
Moreover, even if it does come from creatura, the argument can easily be made that creatures beget (create) other creatures. It seems a very silly and tenuous thing to suddenly muddle a conversation over.
how do you know what everyone thinks?
“beget” doesn’t mean “create”. i don’t muddle the conversation. Creationism is related fundamentally to any conversation about vegetarianism, veganism, speciesism &c.
Ask Abraham. He knows.
How would you define creature?
The word creature is theistic. The person you’re responding to is being pedantic, but isn’t wrong.
thank you :)
Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.
My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.
People from Vega will object to that.