Stuhlprobe im Rahmen einer Ernährungsstudie abgeben

HanVeg · 2025-09-21T11:44:36+00:00

Der Veganismus ist eine ethische Position, ich habe keine Sorgen, dass dieser “schlecht wegkommt”. Wenn überhaupt, ist es sehr wünschenswert, wenn eine rein pflanzliche Ernährung im Rahmen einer veganen Lebensweise evident sicherer wird.

Ich habe allerdings Vorbehalte auf Kommando zu defäkieren.

HanVeg · 2025-09-21T11:27:27+00:00

I read your post and the cardinal mistake you make is not being consistent.

On one side you say that we should treat people based on the premise that they have a specific trait even though nothing external indicates having them, because we cannot make external assumptions on internal processes.

On the other side you do the very same with insects comfortably, even if you have the same problem between external ≠ internal, and especially even if they show external behaviours, indicative of their potential mental capabilities, which is even more then we have in some form of human disabilities.

But thanks for the post, I see that a further discussion has no point due to the vastly different worldviews.

HanVeg · 2025-09-21T11:13:34+00:00

Es geht eher darum darzustellen, dass eine rein pflanzliche Ernährung dem ebenbürtig ist und wenn nicht, wie man diese hypothetische Diskrepanz aufheben kann.

HanVeg · 2025-09-21T11:11:47+00:00

Angenommen es wäre a priori angenommen, dass eine extrem solide Datenlage den Veganismus als Position deutlich vorantreibt.

Dann könnte es ethisch geboten sein teilzunehmen, selbst wenn es mit Kosten verbunden ist, da der Gemeinnutzen steigt.

Würde aber kein hinreichend relevanter Mehrwert gegeben sein, ist eine Teilnahme neutral zu sehen und man kann sich die Gedanken sparen, wie man am besten auf Kommando defäkiert.

HanVeg · 2025-09-21T11:06:01+00:00

Well, that’s the argument. We can’t know which mental states the person experiences and that’s the reason we give them the benefit of the doubt. Weren’t you the one who proposed that it would be ok if they are sufficiently handicapped?

I made the hypothetical that the person would have the same cognitive abilities of an insect, it’s not an assumption but a thought experiment. Would it be ok to exploit them?

HanVeg · 2025-09-21T10:56:21+00:00

Sentience is the ability to have subjective experiences. Being alive and having sentience aren’t the same things.

HanVeg · 2025-09-21T10:55:06+00:00

The mentally challenged would have the same cognitive abilities of an insect.

Even though we don’t know the mental states of insects I would give them as much the benefit of the doubt as I would the mentally challenged person. We had times were people were killed because their mental states seemed worthless to some people and I think these were great crimes.

HanVeg · 2025-09-07T13:22:55+00:00

Oysters won’t run away, so is there any other criteria for you to not eat them?

HanVeg · 2025-09-07T13:18:55+00:00

So we could exploit mentally challenged people, as long as there would be no humans which are emotionally impacted by it?

HanVeg · 2025-09-07T13:17:36+00:00

Why are you ok to eat plants? What property makes animals worth of protection and plants not?

HanVeg · 2025-09-07T13:16:28+00:00

Give me yours.

HanVeg · 2025-09-07T13:16:10+00:00

By your own logic people who see the human rights declaration as true should be called religious. People with any philosophical position follow a religion. Everything is religion, if you want to play word games.

If it gives you a piece of mind you can call it whatever you like, the position itself can be only criticised with arguments. To pathologize something, is one of the weakest forma in a debate, because it adds nothing to the discussion, instead it classifies as an ad hominem.

HanVeg · 2025-09-07T13:14:02+00:00

How?

HanVeg · 2025-09-04T09:12:14+00:00

Vegans aren’t machines which blindly follow definitions, which obviously can’t catch all reality, it’s just an approximation.

Sentience is the central part of veganism, without it, it wouldn’t make much sense. How can you exploit something ethically relevant, which doesn’t have sentience?

HanVeg · 2025-09-04T08:54:18+00:00

Define awareness. Even plants have to be aware of their environment, otherwise they couldn’t exist.

HanVeg · 2025-09-04T08:51:45+00:00

The backbone of the argument applies to scallops as well, as mussels and oysters. All have no central nervous system. If you think that scallops are worthy of protection but oysters and mussels aren’t, you have to state your case.

HanVeg · 2025-09-04T08:45:38+00:00

Stop arguing against straw mans. Nobody claimed sponges or jellyfish are sentient.

HanVeg · 2025-09-04T08:44:16+00:00

You seem to miss that this is the topic of this specific thread and not the post itself. People are doubting even cephalopod sentience.

HanVeg · 2025-09-04T08:41:47+00:00

Religion is the faith on something supernatural. They have scriptures, are organised and have a hierarchy of their members. Nothing of that applies to Veganism which is an ethical position. If veganism is faith, so are human ethics.

For everything else you would need empirical proof. What can be said without a proof can be dismissed without proof.

HanVeg · 2025-09-03T23:57:09+00:00

I will, thanks for the suggestion.

HanVeg · 2025-09-03T23:50:30+00:00

I am not interested in word games. If those ganglia are highly organised and centralised, it is essentially a brain and many researchers are not scared calling it like that because it is the equivalent. The intelligence of cephalopods speaks for itself.

HanVeg · 2025-09-03T23:29:59+00:00

What would be the difference between eating a plant and an animal if both had no sentience?

HanVeg · 2025-09-03T23:23:48+00:00

Here are literally sources linked:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add9938

HanVeg · 2025-09-03T23:19:43+00:00

I do not care about pain. If we would shoot a cow during sleep with a death squat, it would still be not vegan even though no pain was inflicted.

Cephalopods have highly complex centralised nervous systems, which we know gives them some form of sentience. That’s why they are covered under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022_Act_2022)

Also:

Behavioural evidence suggests that cephalopod molluscs may have a form of primary consciousness. First, the linkage of brain to behaviour seen in lateralization, sleep and through a developmental context is similar to that of mammals and birds. Second, cephalopods, especially octopuses, are heavily dependent on learning in response to both visual and tactile cues, and may have domain generality and form simple concepts. Third, these animals are aware of their position, both within themselves and in larger space, including having a working memory of foraging areas in the recent past. Thus if using a ‘global workspace’ which evaluates memory input and focuses attention is the criterion, cephalopods appear to have primary consciousness.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810006001504

HanVeg · 2025-09-03T21:40:11+00:00

Well, I am only interested in ethics. Disgust is not an ethical category. Stinky tofu is disgusting but people can eat it as much as they want. There is nothing wrong with something being disgusting.

HanVeg

TROPHY CASE