Concerning the Consumption of Organisms of Questionable Sentience...

[apple]

If we are against speciesism, we should be able to explain our view clearly. Where do we draw the line? And why? What's your point?
Self consciousness? Complexity of nervous system? Ability to feel pain? Genetic distance/resemblance to mammals like us?
By the way these are all human centred points...

Strange to quote myself, but...
Please don't get me wrong. I'm still in a transition state, but I'm aware of the definition of veganism. I'm just now confronted with - partially aggressive - questions from my environment. And some are about oyster sauce, some about how I would now deal with mosquitos...

So how do you more experienced ones think about this? Do you just quit some discussions? Or do you (still) try to explain your Veggie View ?

 

[Lord Snot]

So how do you more experienced ones think about this? Do you just quit some discussions? Or do you (still) try to explain your Veggie View ?

Depends on the particular discussion, and the person I'm having it with. Sometimes there's little point arguing, and it's best to change the subject. Sometimes I don't know the answer, so I go away and mull it over and discuss it with my veg*n friends. That way, the next time it comes up I'll be prepared. If you feel like you're talking to a brick wall, you can offer to print off some information for the other person to read at their leisure, that's a good way to end the discussion if you want to. If I feel like I'm just being ganged up on and ridiculed and they aren't even listening to what I'm saying, I try and make them feel bad and say something like "can you please stop making fun of me, veganism is very important to me and I wish you'd respect that". If they're a friend, it'll work.

If there are tricky questions you don't know how to answer, you can always start a thread here. Most of us have heard pretty much every stupid omni comment there is

 

[Pickle Juice]

So how do you more experienced ones think about this? Do you just quit some discussions? Or do you (still) try to explain your Veggie View ?

I can argue til the cows come home.

If the person asking me is sincere, I will carry on til they wish to stop. If it's a troll, I don't prolong it, because they are not trying to learn anything, they just want to rile people up.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

Internally I answer the 'oyster question' (and similar) 2 ways:

1) I don't have an ethical argument either way because I don't need one. The idea of eating oysters or oyster-flavored stuff doesn't appeal to me in the least. I'm not going to do it any way. Why waste time coming up with an imaginary, convoluted reason?

2) If I consume oysters, some idjit is going to think that somehow invalidates any suggestion I make that people shouldn't consume, for example, cow flesh. I really don't understand HOW said idjit reaches that conclusion, but they do (frequently!) This sort of conversation is tiresome and distracts from the bigger issue (which is often the point).

Incidentally, #2 is similar to why I don't eat honey. I value not talking about honey more than I value eating it.

 

[ElaineV]

The important question to consider is why would an organism evolve from feeling pain to not feeling pain?

because...

Evolution is not a straight route to gain advantage or to use something. It's not directed at anything. Some things are still there just because they are not a disadvantage (not for an individual, but for a population as a whole over a longer time)

Consider the genetic mutations thatcause Cystic Fibrosis. From genome.gov:
"Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, fatal genetic disease in the United States. About 30,000 people in the United States have the disease. CF causes the body to produce thick, sticky mucus that clogs the lungs, leads to infection, and blocks the pancreas, which stops digestive enzymes from reaching the intestine where they are required in order to digest food."
http://www.genome.gov/10001213

But although CF is a terrible disease that shortens lifespans and causes much suffering, the genetic mutation that makes a person a carrier of CF is actually an evolutionary advantage. It protects against cholera! PBS explains here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session7/explain_b_pop1.html

So, there's an example of how evolution works. And this is why some individuals may suffer tremendously even when overall the cause of the suffering is advantageous to the species.

(By the way, you can easily prevent CF by getting a simple blood test for yourself and your partner before you conceive a child. If you're both carriers then you have a 25% chance of conceiving a child with CF. So to prevent it, you can choose to test and abort a fetus that has it or you can do IVF or you can use the eggs/speerm of a noncarrier or you can adopt.)

 

[mlp]

Not the case where? I am not a troll trying to argue with people here. I think the subject is worth discussing when brought up by a vegan. If a troll should ever show up here to present us with this argument, we can refer them to this thread.

I think Beancounter was referring to the argument on TBTSNBN.

 

[Lord Snot]

because...

Yeah thanks, I understand evolutionary theory. I wasn't suggesting that feeling pain is "higher" evolution, just that I can see many advantages to an organism for feeling pain, but very few for not feeling pain. How would losing the ability to sense negative stimulus be a survival advantage?

Although I don't know much about oysters. If they can't do anything to deter the negative stimulus then feeling it wouldn't give them an advantage.

 

[Josh James xVx]

I wouldn't eat oysters because they look and smell like the phlegm of a cancer patient.

 

[FortyTwo]

I agree with Pickle Juice about the oysters completely.

As for sponges, they are enough of animals that I would not want to eat them, and honey is made by bees which are very much sentient.

 

[Kitties]

I have never had anyone give me a hard time about oysters (which is odd because I know a lot of smart-asses who like to ask me things like if taking an anti-venom after getting bit by a poisonous snake would be vegan ) and their vegan-ness. Honey and sponges are usually ones people rag me about.

Figures people come up with this stuff. Honey and sponges not necessary to live. Anti-venom possibly needed to live if bitten by a poisonous snake. No comparison. We have Rattle Snakes in California and yes, I'd take the anti-venom if I ever got bit.

 

[FortyTwo]

Plus, rattlesnakes aren't exactly abused to get their milk. I'm sure being taunted to bite a cup and held there for a minute or so isn't very fun or comfortable, but from what I know it's not nearly as bad as it could be.

 

[Lord Snot]

So they just catch a wild snake and 'milk' it? They don't raise them and keep them captive for the purpose?

Snakes aren't really a problem here, I don't know much about it.

 

[led.boots]

I saw a guy on TV who milks venomous snakes for a living. He keeps some captive and catches some. He held their neck and made them bite a jar covered with rubber, and the venom would drip into the jar. The snakes were kept in aquariums. The milker guy apparently gets bitten all the time and has a certain immunity to some venoms as a result. I wouldn't think twice about receiving antivenin if I were bitten. I've even taken care of a snakebite victim in the hospital. (Ten-year old girl was playing with her golden retriever. The girl was tackled by her dog to save her from the rattlesnake! He took 2 bites from a six-foot rattler, who then bit my patient in the foot. The dog was saved by antivenin as he took most of the venom. The girl got a couple vials of antivenin and will have some cosmetic scarring on her foot. They let the family bring the dog to visit the girl, and we were all sobbing and hugging the poor dog, lol. It was ridiculous.

Hugely off topic, I just like snakes.

 

[Dropkick]

Concerning the Consumption of Organisms of Questionable Sentience...


I personally think cannibalism is wrong even if you restrict yourself to politicians and their ilk.

 

[kazyeeqen]

I saw a guy on TV who milks venomous snakes for a living. He keeps some captive and catches some. He held their neck and made them bite a jar covered with rubber, and the venom would drip into the jar. The snakes were kept in aquariums. The milker guy apparently gets bitten all the time and has a certain immunity to some venoms as a result. I wouldn't think twice about receiving antivenin if I were bitten. I've even taken care of a snakebite victim in the hospital. (Ten-year old girl was playing with her golden retriever. The girl was tackled by her dog to save her from the rattlesnake! He took 2 bites from a six-foot rattler, who then bit my patient in the foot. The dog was saved by antivenin as he took most of the venom. The girl got a couple vials of antivenin and will have some cosmetic scarring on her foot. They let the family bring the dog to visit the girl, and we were all sobbing and hugging the poor dog, lol. It was ridiculous.

Hugely off topic, I just like snakes.

What a story!

 

[das_nut]

Obviously, erring on the side of caution for cases of "questionable" sentience is probably the best thing to do.

But we should be aware why we adopt the choices we do, else we'll be unable to defend our lifestyle choices. After all, some plants move, and some plants communicate with each other, but that doesn't mean we're hypocrites for eating them.

 

[Sevenseas]

I liked Dave's post on containing the word 'idjit' alone.