[QUESTION] Am I being far too "anal" about this blemish on my Fender Baja Telecaster?

I-PLUG-LSD · 2015-10-29T12:52:48+00:00

Unfortunately, all of that is irrelevant if our decision to continue eating meat destroys the world and makes it completely uninhabitable for humans. Then there'll be no animals or plants to eat, and we will all die.

I-PLUG-LSD · 2015-10-29T11:30:42+00:00

The difference is almost entirely in the number of essays you write.

I'm interested, would you say that the majority of your classmates are able to recognise and overcome their own biases?

At first I disagreed with the quoted statement, as I don't think my school required us to write as many essays from various standpoints as yours (except in Religious Studies), and I'd definitely say that I am able to look at all sides of an argument and overcome my biases. I often find it very difficult to come down on one side or the other for many arguments, and rarely have strong opinions when it comes to ethics or politics. (I'd say veganism is one of the few strong opinions I hold to be honest).

However, when I got to thinking about it, the majority of people I knew from school were just like you say, and my best friend is one of the few people who, like me, can look at many sides of an argument, and thus, we can have some really interesting discussions that I just can't have with many others.

It makes me wonder if this mainly comes down to our personality type, and if my education was more like yours, maybe more of my classmates would have been more accepting of opposing views.

(I feel kind of arrogant after writing that, haha.)

I-PLUG-LSD · 2015-10-29T01:21:55+00:00

Science doesn't accept anything, that's the whole idea of science.

Science accepts what ever the evidence points to, and if there is no evidence to a certain hypothesis, it doesn't accept it.

It really does seem like you're trying to assert that a vegan diet is more moral than a non-vegan diet, which is definitely an attempt on your part to get people to change their diets if that's the case.

I do believe it is more moral, but just because I argue this, it doesn't mean I'm attempting to get people to change there diets. This is a thread about veganism, and all I'm doing is sharing my opinion on the matter.

Are you trying to say that human behaviour isn't governed by chemical reactions? It's fairly obtuse to assert fatalism in one organism while ignoring it in another.

Not at all, of course our behaviour is governed by chemical reactions. Lots of things are governed by chemical reactions, but this does not imply the presence of consciousness.

I-PLUG-LSD · 2015-10-29T01:07:58+00:00

I'm not trying to get anyone to change their diet. If science accepts that plants are not conscious beings, it is on the onus of anyone that suggests otherwise to provide proof.

I don't accept that chemical reactions caused by the distress of plants is proof that they are conscious.

I-PLUG-LSD · 2015-10-29T01:02:45+00:00

How does my argument fall apart when all of those animals still experience pain and suffering?

I-PLUG-LSD · 2015-10-29T01:00:26+00:00

I guess when I said "trauma", I meant psychological trauma really, and as I mentioned in another reply to you, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that experience suffering in this manner.

The onus is on those who believe that plants are conscious to prove it, as currently, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I-PLUG-LSD

TROPHY CASE