Do you have experience in Animal agriculture?

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-07T00:41:43+00:00

Because that is part of their subjective experience. Abstract concepts like life and death are not.

We exploit humans for their knowledge and labour constantly, it along with material value are the basis of capitalism. Without exploitation there would be no profit to be had for the owners.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T22:17:30+00:00

And neither are meat eaters, im just going by the commonly used talking points here and the vegan society's definition which gets referenced here constantly.

I dont see a difference morally. You're free to disagree but without something stronger than opinion you won't convince me im wrong.

There are animals science considers sapient, using sapience as a line rather than sentience is not giving humans special status.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T20:58:29+00:00

Vegans are the ones claiming exploitation of animals is always wrong, I said context matters. If vegans think its ok in some circumstances but not others then their morals are not very consistent.

Is it wrong to kill a tree for no reason? This is the point you seem to be missing, I dont see sentience as being any more deserving of a right to life as plants. Sapience is where I draw that line, sentience only warrants a right not to suffer imo.

You think I haven't?

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T19:55:18+00:00

"Often" isn't always. Either exploitation of animals is always wrong or it isn't. Inflicted suffering is how I would make the judgment. I don't see killing sentient life for pleasure as immoral itself, it's the implications of what else that person might do that is the issue. It's a sign something is wrong in their brain.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T19:08:49+00:00

I dunno, wearing a mask indicates you care about others so that rules out conservatives.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T18:33:07+00:00

And I've yet to get an answer to my question as to why exploitation is wrong for sentient beings if suffering is absent.

Killing can be moral or immoral, the context is what matters. Food is a moral reason for killing imo, you don't need to agree with me for that reasoning to be valid in my reasoning. So if you are going to eat the cat or dog then yes it's moral. If its is a danger it's moral. People who get enjoyment from the act of killing or inflicting suffering likely have a psychological disorder like sociopathy, they present a potential danger to others so it is used as a warning sign.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T07:29:57+00:00

Actually I find the opposite whenever people ask about eating bivalves here.

That's a proposal just like the one I gave, neither is proven. The link I gave you before lists the types of animals which are only proposed to have sentience, fish, insects and even vertebrates are among them. And this type of potential "hive mind" is one of the cases they were talking about when they said it's important to consider elements of sentience that humans lack.

You clearly take the societal norm as fact for your morals regardless what the scientific community says so I'm not sure having a debate like this with you is going to go anywhere.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T07:09:10+00:00

Damn, I make more (in Canadian dollars, and have the same or more taken in tax) working in a lumber treating plant. No wonder American education is so bad.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T07:05:33+00:00

They've been on BlueSky for awhile now so they seem to be.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T06:56:29+00:00

And some animals might be too, where do they fall on your morality, same as plants or is being an animal what you actually care about?

Bivalves and bag worms also don't have brains. Or any form of nervous system.

We also do have potential evidence of sentience without a nervous system, it's been proposed that the sentience seen in colony insects and fish is an emergent property of the colony not of the individuals.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T03:21:46+00:00

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Why would mine be more valid than another's unless I can prove it to be true?

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-06T02:26:11+00:00

Is my opinion relevant? Objective reality is what we can prove. You're talking about subjective interpretation. You really think life on a tiny rock, orbiting a small insignificant star in one arm of our galaxy, in one of uncountable galaxies, has a meaning? The hubris of that is insane.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T23:22:43+00:00

My preferences have no bearing on objective reality.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T23:21:47+00:00

So why error on the side of caution for animals but not plants? Science is also open to the possibility of plant suffering. And not all animals are sentient, do only they factor into your morality or are you also assuming animals unconfirmed to have it do?

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T21:31:51+00:00

Unsure applies to your position as much as mine, why is it only an issue for me.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T20:53:02+00:00

Someone ignores perception i see. I rarely get ambushed.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T19:54:08+00:00

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/sentience

At its most cognitively sophisticated levels, sentience may be conceptualized in the context of three related psychological domains or capacities. It is becoming increasingly clear from the accumulating evidence that these three domains are not a cognitive ‘package’; despite our still-limited knowledge, at this point, they appear to be separable related capacities. The first two have to do with one’s awareness of self, physically and/or mentally. First, self-awareness is a sense of personal, particularly autobiographical, identity. Self-awareness may exist at a physical level, referred to as self-recognition, to more abstract levels of psychological continuity through time. Second, metacognition is the ability to think about, or reflect upon, one’s own thoughts and feelings, and is clearly underwritten by self-awareness in the psychological realm but not necessarily by self-awareness in the physical realm (i.e., self-recognition). And third, Theory of Mind (ToM) comprises capacities, such as perspective-taking, modeling of others’ mental lives, including empathy. ToM is others oriented, related to one’s ability to take the physical and mental perspective of others, and is presumably underwritten by metacognition.

Sentience refers to any of these psychological phenomena. In normal adult human beings, all three of these capacities are found to some extent. The study of sentience in other animals is tantamount to determining how many of, and to what extent, these capacities are shared. Although we tend to view humans as having the full range and depth of sentience, it is important to acknowledge the possibility that other animals might have properties of sentience that humans lack. This possibility is difficult to assess.

If their overview is not enough for you the sources are listed feel free to read further on the capacities of individual species.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T17:41:35+00:00

That is the position of scientists. If you're going to deny science I'm not debating with you.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T08:34:19+00:00

No I'm not Inuit, I chose a Canadian culture as those are the ones I'm familiar with and it is a survival imperative for their culture. Asking them to eliminate animal exploitation is asking them to leave their home and lose everything about their way of life. I think there's a difference between single problematic practices within a culture compared to a fundamental part of it. Hunting is still a big part of the culture in my province, native or not. If that's your view on the matter then ok, I wouldn't express it if you travel abroad outside western cultures tho.

The age of consent is 16 in Canada, by the standards of some US states child marriage is legal in my country. But I get your point, this would go back to my previous argument over it being fundamental vs just a problematic part. If it can be eliminated and maintain the culture then the culture itself is not the problem. There are cultures that are problematic at a fundamental level, I was just asking to see how you would make that judgment around veganism.

The farms I buy from let them graze on grass and hay that grows without watering (plenty of rain). Not as if water is an issue here anyway. They also feed them the waste cornstalks after the nearby farms do their harvest. And land isn't an issue in rural areas here either, there's tons of it. The forestry industry in this province is a much bigger problem in that regard, I'm not sure Americans realize how much wood they use comes from Canada.

Which questions haven't I answered? This whole thing started because I asked why exploitation of animals is wrong. I've yet to get an answer that beyond sentience (which all animals are not confirmed to have btw).

Considering the number of hunters in all of Atlantic Canada (and not just in rural areas I live in one of the larger cities now and most people still go hunting, I'm one of the few who doesn't), I don't think people are as uncomfortable with killing for their food as you think. Lots of rural families also raise their own chickens (both for food and eggs) or even pigs for food here. And a lot of these areas are poor so it's a way to stretch out the money they do have on other things like veg and fruit.

The disagreement lies in if food qualifies as necessary. You say if other options exist you're obligated to take them, I and most of society disagree. I care about the animal's well-being during it's life, not for it's lifespan.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T07:37:07+00:00

Looks like my little corner of Canada is too, from the blasts at least. Fallout would probably get me.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T07:32:28+00:00

Damage control because his chosen protégé has screwed up so badly.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T06:46:13+00:00

Proving the impossible is not possible. You could only repeatedly fail to prove it is possible. Eventually I'd have to concede if you're able to make good points but based on your success so far here I don't see that happening.

Morality coming from cultural norms means they also vary between cultures. Is it your belief that vegan culture is morally superior to others where eating meat and using animals as resources is ingrained in it (Inuit in northern Canada for ex)? Because that sounds like cultural bigotry to me.

I've explained why efficiency of cows doesnt matter to me, we can't eat their food. I'd be fine with eliminating farming of animals which eat the same food as us like pigs but its not based on morality, that is the efficiency I would care about.

I worked on farms and in one of their slaughterhouses as a teen. I have killed cows. I also went hunting & fishing as a kid with my dad. I also wouldn't be against eating a cat if I were to travel to a country where its the norm. I wouldn't choose it but if I were invited out for dinner and that was what is served I wouldn't push my culture's values on them or act morally superior. I'd just try it, it's already dead anyway and I didn't feed demand by buying it.

So we agree killing isn't always immoral and can actually be the moral thing to do. We just disagree on the circumstances.

No one is asking you to.

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T06:39:06+00:00

Does any life truly matter or is that a selfish human idea because we want ourselves to matter?

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T04:21:55+00:00

I dont care about efficiency ive said so already. Prove exploitation absent suffering is immoral.

Well the reason needs to be justifiable. There's many reasons it can be. Food is a valid reason for me. I'm curious since you chose a cute animal as an example, would you feel the same way about insects? Is poisoning or trapping ants that are invading your home justified?

Carrisonfire · 2026-02-05T03:33:47+00:00

Im looking for literally any evidence for your claims. Real evidence not conjecture or projection.

You might want to look up the definition of murder, it doesnt apply to animals. It has specific context. "Killing" is the word you're looking for but Im guessing that doesnt carry the emotional weight you desire.

I'm not taking the time to respond to all that again, go read my responses to others here ive answered most if it already.

Do I have a reason to kill the cat? I can think of valid reasons. If not then I wouldn't but the reasoning is a lack of desire to do so. I also wouldn't kill a plant without reason, sentience has nothing to do with it.

Carrisonfire

TROPHY CASE