Microbe Tragedy

[HC Eredivisie]

It's really not at all. You are misunderstanding basic biological processes either deliberately or unintentionally. Either way I have no time for such games or to prove each of your fallacious points incorrect.

Except that he is correct and you're wrong.

You are the one that said plants have no neurons and so they feel no sensations, though they do.

[Nobel Hobos]

I cause a bacterial holocaust every time I wash my hands.

Only if you use soap. If you use fresh water, the bacteria live or die quite naturally.

You aren't obliged to provide them with warmth or nutrients, just because they were born and raised on your hands. By washing your hands, you are parting ways from them, as is your right. If they happen to die because they had become dependent on you (without your consent) then that's their tough luck.

[Natapoc]

It's really not at all. You are misunderstanding basic biological processes either deliberately or unintentionally. Either way I have no time for such games or to prove each of your fallacious points incorrect.

Except that he is correct and you're wrong.

You are the one that said plants have no neurons and so they feel no sensations, though they do.

No, plants do not "feel" by any reasonable definition.

[HC Eredivisie]

It's really not at all. You are misunderstanding basic biological processes either deliberately or unintentionally. Either way I have no time for such games or to prove each of your fallacious points incorrect.

Except that he is correct and you're wrong.

You are the one that said plants have no neurons and so they feel no sensations, though they do.

No, plants do not "feel" by any reasonable definition.

They just react to something. Sure.

[Nobel Hobos]

It's really not at all. You are misunderstanding basic biological processes either deliberately or unintentionally. Either way I have no time for such games or to prove each of your fallacious points incorrect.

Except that he is correct and you're wrong.

You are the one that said plants have no neurons and so they feel no sensations, though they do.

No, plants do not "feel" by any reasonable definition.

I agree. By my definition of "feeling" they do not.

That they react to stimulus is not enough to say they "feel". And the argument I have heard for "rights for microbes" is based on their response to stimulus.

[Nazis in Space]

It's really not at all. You are misunderstanding basic biological processes either deliberately or unintentionally. Either way I have no time for such games or to prove each of your fallacious points incorrect.

Except that he is correct and you're wrong.

You are the one that said plants have no neurons and so they feel no sensations, though they do.

Hilariously, although plants don't have neurons, they do in fact use electric signal transmission (A very slow form, needing minutes per metre instead of a hundredth of a second per metre), but they use it. They're closer to neuronal communication than one may think.

Just don't need high-speed animal type networking, what with the 'No walking' part. So they can afford being a little slower on the uptake.

[Esternial]

It's really not at all. You are misunderstanding basic biological processes either deliberately or unintentionally. Either way I have no time for such games or to prove each of your fallacious points incorrect.

Except that he is correct and you're wrong.

You are the one that said plants have no neurons and so they feel no sensations, though they do.

Hilariously, although plants don't have neurons, they do in fact use electric signal transmission (A very slow form, needing minutes per metre instead of a hundredth of a second per metre), but they use it. They're closer to neuronal communication than one may think.

Just don't need high-speed animal type networking, what with the 'No walking' part. So they can afford being a little slower on the uptake.

For a space nazi, you are quite the hippie ^^

[Nazis in Space]

I agree. By my definition of "feeling" they do not.

That they react to stimulus is not enough to say they "feel". And the argument I have heard for "rights for microbes" is based on their response to stimulus.

So, your definition of 'Feeling' is essentially 'Only if you've neurons', regardless of whether the end result is exactly the same or not?

It's sort of like saying that one only 'Feels' if you've a fully developed human brain, and having a, say, reptilian brain does, sadly, not qualify you as a sentient organism. Sure, you're reacting to stimuli, but my dear crocodile, you just don't have the brain needed to truly experience pain like I do, therefore you're not sentient.

I call speciism and hypocrisy on this.

[Nazis in Space]

For a space nazi, you are quite the hippie ^^

Once we lost WW2 and fled to the back side of the moon, certain parts of the ideology received a major revamping. I'm a strong believer in darwinism, and keeping the ideology as it was after it very clearly failed really wouldn't have been bright at all.

[Zephie]

I agree. By my definition of "feeling" they do not.

That they react to stimulus is not enough to say they "feel". And the argument I have heard for "rights for microbes" is based on their response to stimulus.

So, your definition of 'Feeling' is essentially 'Only if you've neurons', regardless of whether the end result is exactly the same or not?

It's sort of like saying that one only 'Feels' if you've a fully developed human brain, and having a, say, reptilian brain does, sadly, not qualify you as a sentient organism. Sure, you're reacting to stimuli, but my dear crocodile, you just don't have the brain needed to truly experience pain like I do, therefore you're not sentient.

I call speciism and hypocrisy on this.

If you convince the vegans plants have feelings and feel pain, they will end up starving themselves.

[Nazis in Space]

If you convince the vegans plants have feelings and feel pain, they will end up starving themselves.

It really shouldn't be me who has to convince them. Biology journals will do just fine. Everything I've written in this thread is, after all, merely me serving as the mouthpiece for actual biologists who did the actual research I've merely read (In the printing press, no less).

But, of course, expecting ideologists to read actual science may be a little much...

[Natapoc]

If you convince the vegans plants have feelings and feel pain, they will end up starving themselves.

It really shouldn't be me who has to convince them. Biology journals will do just fine. Everything I've written in this thread is, after all, merely me serving as the mouthpiece for actual biologists who did the actual research I've merely read (In the printing press, no less).

But, of course, expecting ideologists to read actual science may be a little much...

You mean flat earther style pseudoscience? Yeah... sure. I'm preparing a topic to discredit this nonsense. Basic science education is so lacking it's sad. "No child left behind?" Yeah right!

[Nobel Hobos]

I agree. By my definition of "feeling" they do not.

That they react to stimulus is not enough to say they "feel". And the argument I have heard for "rights for microbes" is based on their response to stimulus.

So, your definition of 'Feeling' is essentially 'Only if you've neurons', regardless of whether the end result is exactly the same or not?

No. Whatever made you think I said that?

Perhaps it was how I said to Natapoc "I agree". Perhaps you think that you can hold me to whatever you think Natapoc said in some other post than the one I replied to with "I agree".

Well, you can't. And you'll look silly if you try.

It's sort of like saying that one only 'Feels' if you've a fully developed human brain, and having a, say, reptilian brain does, sadly, not qualify you as a sentient organism. Sure, you're reacting to stimuli, but my dear crocodile, you just don't have the brain needed to truly experience pain like I do, therefore you're not sentient.

I call speciism and hypocrisy on this.

On this? On what? The strawman you just built?

Call hypocrisy and speciesism on it all you like. Wear a silly hat and dance the can-can as well if it keeps you entertained.

[Nazis in Space]

If you convince the vegans plants have feelings and feel pain, they will end up starving themselves.

It really shouldn't be me who has to convince them. Biology journals will do just fine. Everything I've written in this thread is, after all, merely me serving as the mouthpiece for actual biologists who did the actual research I've merely read (In the printing press, no less).

But, of course, expecting ideologists to read actual science may be a little much...

You mean flat earther style pseudoscience? Yeah... sure. I'm preparing a topic to discredit this nonsense. Basic science education is so lacking it's sad. "No child left behind?" Yeah right!

Knock yerself out.

Yeah, it's wiki. Ignore the article, I'm largely using it as a neat way to link the references in question all in one go.

[Esternial]

So, chopping down a tree = killing a deer?

[Nazis in Space]

So, chopping down a tree = killing a deer?

Well, in both cases you kill a living, feeling being (Actually, quite a lot of them, but lets simplify) for personal gain.

The story of life itself, tbh.

[Esternial]

So, chopping down a tree = killing a deer?

Well, in both cases you kill a living, feeling being (Actually, quite a lot of them, but lets simplify) for personal gain.
The story of life itself, tbh.

Still, trees can 'regenerate' from their stump...animals cannot. Lose an arm, gone forever.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

If you convince the vegans plants have feelings and feel pain, they will end up starving themselves.

You can survive on just fruit.
Its an extremely limited diet but I think its possible.

[Nazis in Space]

So, chopping down a tree = killing a deer?

Well, in both cases you kill a living, feeling being (Actually, quite a lot of them, but lets simplify) for personal gain.
The story of life itself, tbh.

Still, trees can 'regenerate' from their stump...animals cannot. Lose an arm, gone forever.

Okay. You're at least severely injuring a living, feeling being.

[Nobel Hobos]

Yeah, it's wiki. Ignore the article, I'm largely using it as a neat way to link the references in question all in one go.

Or to put it another way, your scientific sources are whatever was given as a source in wikipedia.

Yeah, that's so much more authoritative than just linking to wikipedia.

[Nobel Hobos]

So, chopping down a tree = killing a deer?

Well, in both cases you kill a living, feeling being (Actually, quite a lot of them, but lets simplify) for personal gain.
The story of life itself, tbh.

Still, trees can 'regenerate' from their stump...animals cannot. Lose an arm, gone forever.

Okay. You're at least severely injuring a living, feeling being.

"Living being" encompasses animals, plants AND bacteria. I think we agree on that.

I'd like to know your definition of "feeling" though.

It's also important to note that a regrown branch of tree serves every purpose which the amputated limb of the tree served before. Cultivated varities (eg, fruit trees) actually prosper from pruning (they are healthier when pruned). But animals are different. As Esternial said, lose an arm and it is gone forever. Limbs have more specific functions and are part of a form which is important to the life of an animal, but are not to the life of a plant.

Yes, plants have "limbs" with specific function. You can argue that removing their fruit "harms" a plant ... but that would be to fly in the face of biology. Plainly, the removal of fruit (and subsequent dispersal of seed) favours the genes of that plant. And in an evolutionary sense, favours that plant.

[Natapoc]

Yeah, it's wiki. Ignore the article, I'm largely using it as a neat way to link the references in question all in one go.

Or to put it another way, your scientific sources are whatever was given as a source in wikipedia.

Yeah, that's so much more authoritative than just linking to wikipedia.

To make matters worse his source does not really support his viewpoint. He misunderstands what his source is actually saying. Also: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=68784

[Nobel Hobos]

EDIT: all previous replaced:

Yeah, it's wiki. Ignore the article, I'm largely using it as a neat way to link the references in question all in one go.

Or to put it another way, your scientific sources are whatever was given as a source in wikipedia.

Yeah, that's so much more authoritative than just linking to wikipedia.

To make matters worse his source does not really support his viewpoint. He misunderstands what his source is actually saying. Also: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=68784

I'm aware of that thread.

NiS is entitled to bring up your opinions from previous threads. I think it's rather petty to continue a previous argument in a new context (which like I said, was parody right from the OP) but NiS can do that.

But if Nazis in Space tries to argue against all vegans on the basis that they are all answerable to the opinion of one vegan, then NiS will be facing enfilading fire.

They're going down! In a hail of turnips!

[Esternial]

If you convince the vegans plants have feelings and feel pain, they will end up starving themselves.

You can survive on just fruit.
Its an extremely limited diet but I think its possible.

Fruits don't offer all the vitamins you need to survive. (I think)

[Nobel Hobos]

If you convince the vegans plants have feelings and feel pain, they will end up starving themselves.

You can survive on just fruit.
Its an extremely limited diet but I think its possible.

Fruits don't offer all the vitamins you need to survive. (I think)

Not much protein. But if you include seeds (grains) then you can live on the discards of plants quite easily.

Is a seed alive? I'm not sure. I'm not a biologist.