CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Vegans - Whats the difference between killing animals or killing plants.
Aren't plants living things also? This is not geared toward those who choose not to eat meat for other reasons other than not willing to take life. Also i do not have any reverence toward vegans in no way. This is just for perspective.
Botanists are not a good source. In fact, it kind of hurts your claim. If the only way to detect personality in a plant is to study then every day, they probably don't have personality. It takes no time at all to see the personality in a dog.
I am glad you have come to grips with the fact that you are too dumb to understand what is going on. I like this new strategy of yours. Admitting you are stupid and need help with basic premises is healthy since you are always lost based on simple semantics. Unfortunately, I can't help you here because you don't know what animals are. I wish I could help you, but it seems you are too dumb.
I would love to see a link or an article from ANY professional or at least an MS level Botanist who claims that any type of flora can be proven to be endowed with "personality."
Since it takes a central nervous system, and, more importantly and specifically, a brain in order to posses any sort of sentient character or socializing traits and/or ethos.
Last I checked no plants had anything even remotely resembling this sort of physiological paradigm.
The closest thing to any sort of sentience or self-awareness I have ever heard of a plant doing is to eat insects. But this is a strictly physical response to stimulus. No different than you removing your hand from a hot stove.
Plants can also tend to move towards a light source. To lean towards the stimulus which allows them to feed through photosynthesis, of course. This is an action we call heliotropism. But again it falls far short of exuding any sort of a personality.
The myth that [plants respond to music or talking has never been verified. I would also welcome you to show one link that says otherwise. In fact, I will settle for this since I am very very skeptical of you being bale to provide a credible link that claims pants to have personalities.
Is your botanist friends named Rupert Sheldrake? LOL
Late term babies have all those things.... nervous system, brain, etc. but you have no problem supporting the killing of them when you vote for Democrats.
Oh that's right, deceivers like you don't vote for Democrats.... they vote for the green party or some other left wing prty that supports killing late term bbies.
Now the interesting question is whether or not you will admit you were wrong to make that comment to him, since you always accuse the Left of never admitting when they are wrong.
Do you actually think I woud admit I am wrong to something you would say some one else believes? I wil believe he would never vote for a Democrat when he tells me.
Of course he doesn't expect you to do things you say people like you would do since you have never once done what you said you would do. Wet have come to expect that from you. I look forward to your next non sequitur.
I am against late-term abortions. As I have stated before.
I support only first-semester abortions. And even then, with some additional requirements.
Also. I don't always vote democrat. Oh, I have in the past, sure. But as an Independent voter I have voted more often for the GOP candidate than for the Dems. I go with whomever I feel is the right man for the job at the given time.
Also, it could be argued that even late-term "babies" as you call them are not really babies, but rather still in the fetal stage. Not to mince words, but calling a 7-month old fetus a baby is not scientifically accurate. That's why the term is not used i the medical profession.
It's only used by biased and usually scientifically-challenged Pro Lifers.
You are correct when you say I should not have called you an idiot. I sometimes lose my cool when I debate people like you who constanty twist facts and twist what people say to make yourself correct.
You are a liar because you have supported late term abortions with your vote for Democrats who support it! Just one more moral that you do not posses. Honesty.
Like I have said a thousand times, do you think a person can vote for an admitted KKK member and then claim he is not responsible for the racist laws the politican admitted he supports. When you help elect a person, you are supporting what that politican supports.
No one supports every little thing a politician supports but when it comes to issues as important as innocent life or racist hate, you are supporting the inhumanity. I would never vote for any politician from the GOP or Democrat party that supported even late term abortions or belonged to the KKK.
Lets see, you now say you only support 1st trimester abortions, but then you go on and on about how even late term babies "are not really babies".
When I hear people like you trying to excuse the inexcusable, I always ask them that if the late term baby is not a real Baby, why would you only support 1st trimester abortions? They never have an answer.
It is so amusing listening to people who say they are good moral people, trying to explain something that can not be explained. This is why they HATE getting into the abortion debate because it shows their true colors and lack of compassion.
The final statement I will get from people like you will be, this is not an abortion debate and try to change the subject.
Not really. Those other animals don't need us to manage their populations for them. We are actually pretty lousy at this.
Your argument is the one that hunters use to justify their cold-blooded murder of innocent animals.
Because, it seems all those animals did just fine in maintaining their populations before we came along. Remember that as a species, us homo sapiens are pretty newly-arrived on the scene. We only go back about 60,000 years.
Animals have been around for millions of years.
(although--yes--they too have evolved and many species have died-out so there are very few still around that were here when we left Central Eastern Africa for Europe some 50,000 years ago.
Nature will always find away. It is a self-equalizing and self-maintaining entity. We are only one species of animals. Freaks, really, who went off the charts of higher primates when our brains evolved faster than they might have.
Take away our guns and our survival tools that we need to live in the wild, and homo sapien is actually a very weak species. Ill suited for living outside. We have many physiological flaws for us to be efficient at this: inability to go without food or water for too long; no fur for warmth; our upright gait makes us far too vulnerable for being attacked and disemboweled; our eyesight is only fair. And our senses of hearing and smell also pale in comparison with many other species.
Hell, some animals considered low on the food chain out there can take us down! A javelina; a deer; a snake; poisonous spiders; scorps; a pissed-off honey badger. Our digestive system also needs our food and water to be far more sanitized than other animals need it to be.
It is only with a good deal of luck that we made it this far. Start the Earth all over again, with exactly the same conditions as when life began some 3 BYA, and we easily could not have made it here.
For one example, the asteroid strike in the Yucatan about 65 MYA killed off the dinosaurs.
When that happened we were pretty much vole-like creatures. Tree dwelling rodents. Not that much different than a squirrel. (For a pic of this, look at that video I had in a link of one of my posts entitled "Our history in one minute." And stop the timeline at 65 MYA. See what we looked like.)
No asteroid strike and reptiles might well be running the show nowadays.
Run the history of the Earth over and over, say, 100 times and it is likely we would not make it here like today more than a couple times out of all of those chances. Also, Neanderthal could have easily vanquished is when we met up with them in Europe 50 MYA. We have discovered in recent years that he was no slouch! Stronger and tougher than us. And--get this: he had bigger brains!
We aint all that and a bag of chips, amigo.
Here's that video for you. Don't forget to stop it at "65 MYA" to see how we were back then. You're welcome.
You link an article on from the Boston Globe? Which was about a proposed hunting ban? Thus the opinions in said article were from HUNTERS who opposed the proposed ban?
Wow.
Hardly a scientific objective peer-reviewed article, now, is it?
It's like trying to prove that welfare is proven to be scientifically bad by posting an article written by a right-wing GOP politician. In other words: highly biased and agenda-driven.
That article and the way it was written would not survive two seconds in the Scientific arena. Where we need to supply verifiable facts in our papers. And then open them up to critique and review from our peers. Half of whom will do anything in their power to make a name for themselves by tearing-down the paper's premise.
I can post link after link on this, supporting my claim that the fact is that we homo sapiens have done far far more harm than good to Mother Nature and the Earth's Eco-System over the past 200 years (since the dawn of the Industrial Age) than we have done good.
The "population management" notion is a joke. less than a joke. Since it isn't funny. It's the tired old parrot call of rednecks and brain dead hunters. Funny thing about those hunters, BTW: I always found that the number of guns they have and the need for them to hunt and murder innocent animals is in direct opposite proportion to the size of the dicks.
in psych we call this "over-compensating." LOL
The hunters claiming that they are doing the Eco-System a favor by killing innocent animals in cold blood is just like Hitler saying he is doing Society a favor by attempting to create a Master Race.
Same deal: wrong and stupid and highly prejudiced. And with zero scientific merit.
Have a nice day! Maybe you and Uncle Billy Bob can go out and murder a deer with a high-powered rifle and scope as it feeds from the deer feeder you put out. That is VERY sporting, BTW.
Wanna impress us with your hunting skills? Go hunt a freaking bear with a Bowie knife. Then you can pop-off. Till then, bugger off and go fry something in your double wide.
So, I already shot down you Boston Globe article for being what it is: biased and non-scientific. Written for freaking Pro-Hunter lobbyists in an effort to get people to vote down an anti-hunting ban. Ergo..a very agenda driven and non-science-based article.
So now you post an article with a more credible source. A wildlife Management and Conservation Group. Good. Much better, thank you.
LOL...but the article said this....
"MassWildlife uses hunting as a deer population management tool, mostly through regulating the number of does taken by hunters."
READ: "....regulating the number of does taken by rednecks. Er..hunters."
This means it must curtail hunting so as to prevent the deer pop from being harmed and dwindled! They are just throwing a bone. Compromising to hunters. Restricting their killing instead of banning it all together.
Nowhere in that article did it claim that hunting was proven be an effective tool for animal population. And that without it the herds would be worse off.
Posting "pro killing animals is for their own good" articles from magazines written and published FOR HUNTERS!
You wouldn't last two minutes in one of my college's Debate Classes. Such tactics would get you laughed outta there, pronto.
So you'd have to, well, you know, post your laughably biased stuff here, on CD.
Look, we are simply one species out of thousands on this planet, and in our short time here have don far more damage to this world than we have good for it. Pollution; global warming; killing; catastrophic plagues and diseases; more pollution; the erosion of the protective Ozone layer; the razing of valuable Rain Forests; killing Coral Reefs. Just a lot of irresponsible and wanton disregard for the health of our planet.
Animals did just fine "managing" themselves before we came along. They did better, in fact. And will continue to do so long after we have killed ourselves off. Smugness like yours, as well as a very deluded notion that for some reason Mother Earth needs us to act as stewards are a big part of the problem.
As an Evolutionary Biologist I am all too aware that Nature can and does balance itself. Through processes like Natural Selection and Adaption, as well as the immutable Survival of the Fittest Laws, the Earth simply does not need us Naked Apes. The day we are eradicated, if and when it comes, will be a Happy Day as far as the rest of the Planet is concerned. It will be like aq bunch of outlaw looters leaving town.
And no, I am far from being a Misanthrope. I am simply educated in how Nature and Biology work. You sir, are apparently not, so you cherry pick biased articles from pro-murderer--oops, pro hunter---magazines to try and make your point. Which I find to be sorta lame. But hey, in the face of the overwhelming evidence against your opinion, I suppose its the best you can hope to do.
I doubt I am the smartest, but I am probably in the top 25% in the United States. At least that is my reckoning based on what I have read from my peers and colleagues in published books and peer-reviewed Science Journals over the years.
So i take it you haven't heard the study where plants grow better when music is playing and ir people talk to them. If thats not personality- what would you call it? Venus fly trap -
So my point is everything we eat has to die in the process. Also the only reason animals are treated as such is because of greed. If animals were humanely slaughtered would you eat meat then?
Sound waves changing how a plant grows is simply a physical change that had nothing to do with personality.
I am not actually a vegan. I can't tell you how they think. But, the idea of humanely slaughtering animals sill goes against vegan thinking because they are against killing animals. I think that goes for all kinds of killing.
OH, I been hearing about those studies for years, man. I even participated in one in undergrad school--in a Botany class. (Univ. of Michigan--Health & Sciences Div..Fall Sem..2010).
We took one group of plants and played classical music to them twice a day, for an hour each session each.
The other "control" group we did nothing to. Same plants in room. Same room temperature, same amount of water to all of them. All conditions regarding the two groups of plants were identical. Except for the music.
This is how you do empirical studies. You must have a control group to go along with the group of whatever it is that you are providing stimulus for.
We did the study for two weeks.
At the end of two weeks, we could discern no noticeable difference between any of the plants in the two study groups.
We repeated the same test later, but played loud hard rock and heavy metal music to one set of plants; classical music to another; and then no music at all to a 3rd group. Except they were talked to a little by some of the students doing the experiment.
Same test duration. Same everything as in the initial study.
Results after a one-week test: the "talked to" plants showed a very slight increase in growth over the other two groups. I myself could not really tell the difference but my Botanist professor said those plants had slightly better developed root systems. And were, overall, a bit greener, which meant their chlorophyll production may have been ramped-up a little.
But the thing is these experiments have been done in labs all over the country for a couple decades now. Thousands of times. ANd the results always vary! Sometimes the control group is better; sometimes the music group;sometimes the "talked to" group. And usually...there is NO tangible difference between the groups.
Therefore, the most accurate statement to be made regarding the idea that playing music or talking to plants is beneficial to their health would be: "Although this dynamic has been witnessed occasionally in tests, overall the evidence is not conclusive enough to offer a solid, verifiable opinion on this issue."
That's something along the lines of how I would word it, anyway.
Lastly: Let's say that YES! We had proved that playing music to the plants DID improve their health. Well, this still would not even come close to hinting they had a "personality." I said all this in my OP, guys. All that would show is that the plants were capable if processing the sensory input--waves of compressed air--that's all music is--and utilizing this stimulus in a purely physiological method so as to increase nutrient metabolism.
That is...it's all materialistic and physical. Nothing to do with a CNS or a Brain--a mind--which are requisites for a personality.
Vegans are not against killing everything that is life. They are against killing those which can feel pain and emotion, especially doing so without a reason for necessitation. The central nervous system is what allows sentient beings to feel this pain and emotion. The central nervous system is not found in plants but it is found in the animals we eat; that is the difference.
There is an obvious difference biologically, although I don't think that's what you're getting at. You seem to be asking what the ethical difference is between killing animals and killing plants. If you accept the subjectivity and relativity of ethics, nothing actually.
Late term babies have all those things.... nervous system, brain, etc. but you have no problem supporting the killing of them when you vote for Democrats.
Vegans have no problem with supporting the killing of late term Babies, when they vote for democrats. What total hypocrites!
Have you ever heard Peta or vegans include unborn Babies with their protests?
A fetus develops its' cerebral cortex, which is responsible for thought processes and consciousness, at around 24 weeks. Abortion is not legal at that point.
hogwash! I could give you sites that totally disagree with what you are saying. The baby feels pain long before 6 months as we saw in the one abortion video they showed deades ago.
Well please do! This would not be much of a debate site if people did not support their arguments with scientific research for support. Also, I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say 'we'?
Your article made this statement......"People have the right to believe what they want but they do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others. The right to choose is the mother's, not anyone's else."
So in your hypocritic world, you say people have no right to impose their beiefs on others but a mother has the right to impose death on her Baby. That Baby is another separate life.
It's a waste of time talking with pro abortion people. They simply bury their heads in the sand of denial.
By the way, the GOP has many times tried to stop abortions past 20 weeks(except for extreme cases) only to have Democrats stop them. Democrats are bought and paid for by feminists and pro abortionists.
How on earth would 5 months not be enough time to have an abortion. Democrats are exremist fanatics who refuse to compromuse.
The plants we eat are not the same plants somehow manifested in the new ones that grow; you know that right? That's like saying: since we can breed animals, it's okay to eat them because they are just going to be born again anyways.
Your article made this statement......"People have the right to believe what they want but they do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others. The right to choose is the mother's, not anyone's else."
So in your hypocritic world, you say people have no right to impose their beiefs on others but a mother has the right to impose death on her Baby. That Baby is another separate life.
It's a waste of time talking with pro abortion people. They simply bury their heads in the sand of denial.
By the way, the GOP has many times tried to stop abortions past 20 weeks(except for extreme cases) only to have Democrats stop them. Democrats are bought and paid for by feminists and pro abortionists.
How on earth would 5 months not be enough time to have an abortion. Democrats are exremist fanatics who refuse to compromuse.
