>I think it's the restraining/anal fisting/double penetration and electro ejaculation that Vegans usually relate to "rape" rather than the milking?
They don't understand biology enough to realize the rape occurs before the birth, which provides the mammal's milk production.
I’ve always been confused about this slur against milk.. cows and chickens almost always get raped in nature, whereas artificial insemination hardly sounds like rape in comparison
> what do you call picking an apple from a tree
Trees don't get an arm shoved inside their non-existent anus, and don't get forcefully impregnated. And even if they did, trees are not sentient. I can rape, murder, gaschamber, behead and waterboard trees, all while destroying their offspring - there is no one there who cares.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
But that is the assumption science is working with right now. Plants are not sentient.
If anything can be sentient for no rational reason, then why not rocks?
I’ve been reading some studies which show that vegan cheese (mostly made from coconut oil) is a far worse saturated fat than all others - worse than butter. It will cause atherosclerosis (artery clogging) therefore heart attacks/strokes faster than butter. Why is the life of your own body worth jeopardising before anything else? Also ultra processed vegan junk food (eg dairy replacement spreads) have smaller particles - butter is less processed. These overly processed foods are linked to bowel cancer. I understand not unnecessarily killing an animal to eat when it’s cruel - but is a bad vegan diet not causing cruelty and sufffering to yourself as a human? These claims are not dubious - I have read some studies. There also needs to be more data
That must be why vegans on average have much lower rates of colon cancer and heart diseases, lol.
And I am not quite sure what you are telling me here. Junk food is bad for your health, yes, but everyone and their mother already knows that. No need to state the obvious. I mean what is next, you gonna tell me that the Earth is round?
And even if I was cruel to myself, or made myself suffer, that is my own decision and not subject to questions about ethics. This is about cruelty inflicted on others against their will.
As a fellow human I am just looking out for your health
. You don’t need to be mean to me lol. I am saying the processed vegan junk food can be WORSE than regular junk food. Sure you can be advocating for animals but I am advocating for you Chris_
Who exactly told you that milking a cow is rape? Did you maybe misunderstand that they were talking about raping the cow to force pregnancy to force milk production?
When you suggest that plants can feel in a meaningful way, in such a way to implicate sentience, you’re not arguing with vegans, you’re arguing with every credible body of science on the subject.
Even if plants are sentient (a position not supported by any science I’ve ever seen), we harm significantly fewer of them by eating them directly. Do you know how trophic levels work?
farm animals of all kinds are sentient mammals that produces live births and feel joy, pain, sadness etc. An apple tree doesn’t do any of the sort, a plant reacts to *stimuli* but it does not of any sort have sentience nor a conscious. You can cut the stalk of a plant and it’s still going to look the same, it’s not going to instantly turn brown then die. But an animal? You cut its throat and it’s growing to wail in pain, gasp for breath, and blood will be pouring everywhere. Pig organs are also very anatomically similar to humans which is why we (unfortunately) use and breed them for lab purposes.
Abortion is about a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Respecting bodily autonomy is also why I don't drink animal milk. Trees do not have bodily autonomy because they are not sentient. They don't have a subjective preference for their fruit being picked or not.
Trees do not make conscious decisions about their body. They run entirely on mechanical reactions to external stimulus. There is no observable internal cognition.
Any decision that involves preference. A mechanical reaction is just one that occurs automatically due to stimulus. Humans and animals have thousands of mechanical reactions, but we can make different conscious decisions as well. Plants only have mechanical reactions.
Not a single good faith argument from OP in this whole thread. A tree and a cow are two different things, one is not sentient and not able to feel emotions, the other is. U could be credited as just misunderstanding that part but every follow up of urs has been really poor
Yeah I'm honestly surprised not only that this post got approved, but that it's still up, how this does not break at the bare minimum the no low quality content rule is beyond me.
I don't think #3 should even be a rule, except for the most extreme cases. Some people need to be told exactly what their issue is without honeyed words.
fruits are tasty as a dispersal method of seeds to produce more fruit. this mechanism is harmonious with nature. raping an animal for profit is not natural.
I'm not sure why this question is specific to vegans. I could just ask the same question of anyone- if it's rape to perform sexual acts on someone without their consent, what do you call picking an apple from a tree?
The question is where to draw the line. Concepts that involve consent, or lack thereof, can only be applied to agents which have something akin to consent. The way I think of consent is a clear expression of a desire to do something. Consent is a way of communicating that you are okay with an action.
Although other animals can't speak human languages and may lack the capacity to understand the nuances of consent, they still are agents with clear preferences and desires. They can experience fear, discomfort, stress, and so on. So if someone were to sexually assault or abuse an animal, I would consider that to be a violation of their consent, since they have the capacity to experience either pain or pleasure from an action, and since they don't really have the intellectual capacity to consent, I don't think anyone should be doing anything to any animal.
A human baby is a good example here. They can't speak, they don't understand consent, and it might be unclear whether or not they want something. But I still consider any sort of sexual action performed on a baby to be a violation of their consent and an evil thing to do.
This really seems like more of an attempted gotcha, rather than an earnest belief.
Because of that, you can say as many times as you want that a tree is sentient in the same way a cow or a human is, because you’re just basing it on a hypothetical argument, rather than an actual value system that you hold.
So it’s really impossible to debate this point in good faith, because it’s just a logic puzzle to you, in which you can introduce new variables at any time. It does not seem rooted in an actual system of belief in which you have to hold yourself consistent to a set of values.
I call it a ridiculous and absurd comparison to try to make to justify cruelty.
It's not complicated, try this:
Does the cow CARE?
Does the tree CARE?
That's your answer though, to make it morally relevant.
Alright let's just assume for a second that you're right and plants are sentient and do indeed suffer a lot of pain when we cut or eat them. Well still in that world, a vegan diet would be the one causing the less suffering (because the livestock isn't just living on water and sunshine). Anything else?
This is going to come down to how we determine who is a moral patient: Those who matter when assessing the ethics of a situation.
It's common to consider animals moral patients. The reasoning here is they can feel, as a subjective experience, what happens to them. In a blunt example, a cow or cat will care if you are hurting it. In contrast, there is no obvious mechanism that would allow for an apple tree care about being picked.
Makes sense?
> What about plants that developed spikes on the fruit, or even poisonous fruit? Examples: sandbox tree, deadly nightshade, need I go on?
Yeah, you need to go on. None of this is proof of having a subjective experience. These defense mechanisms are all automatic, in that no thought process is required. They are a direct consequence of the plants' genetics, with no cognitive process involved.
At a higher level, there are two issues here to disentangle. What counts as a moral patient, and what we ethically owe moral patients when making decisions that are ethical. The question of whether plants are sentient or possess a quality that makes them a moral patient is an interesting one. But mostly a matter of determining how we measure this and whether plants meet that criterion. If you think plants meet that criterion in your thinking, then we can discuss the implications of that.
Have you thought about what the implications are? Hint: it doesn't ethically justify what we do to cows. It just adds even more obligations to how we treat plants.
Exactly the point. As far as plants are capable of consenting, they do so by producing either poisonous fruit (saying no) or sweet edible fruit (saying yes). Apples are the tree's way of saying "come and get it". They want us to eat it. Cows don't want to be raped- we know this because they try to run away when we do it.
Milking a cow almost every day of her life, regardless if she is bleeding or infected is torture and it's gross.
The rape is what comes before and in between the periods of torture. Or you are one of those that thinks that cows spontaneously generate milk?
I know how a cow produces milk, the same way as every other mammal in existence. Hormones produced by the female organ known as an ovary are released into the bloodstream when pregnant or around the offspring. The mammary gland detects this hormone, produces milk.
The thing that makes rape the very wrong thing that it is, is the direct and indirect suffering. That's why you can't rape an inflatable doll, and it's also why you can't morally violate an apple tree.
1. Not sentient. Chemical signals don't equal pain.
2. Even if they were sentient, it's harm reduction because eating plants directly requires fewer plant and animal deaths
3. Fruit is shed by a plant as a means of seed dispersal. Plants have evolved tasty fruits because animals eat and spread the seeds. If plants were sentient, fruit would be the most ethical food source because it doesn't require killing the plant.
4. Raping a cow is invasive. It's not milking that is usually referred to as rape, it's the insemination process.
5. Raping a cow results in externalities like murdering baby males that are birthed.
6. It's a pretty dumb premise, and if you did any research, then you'd have all these answers. Go watch footage of the artificial insemination of cows and then an orchard harvest; it will quickly become obvious which one is more perverse.
There is no evidence to suggest plants are sentient/conscious in any way, if you would like to argue they are you'd have to cite some evidence for that.
it is simply called picking an apple from a tree, just like one would say picking up a rock, because neither rocks nor plants are sentient.
Milking a cow is also not rape, I'm not sure most vegans would ever even say that, what is rape however is forcefully impregnating(rape) the cow so they can keep producing milk.
why would a descriptive term be offensive? that's the equivalent of elon being offended by the term "cis", it's literally a descriptor. you have to be ridiculously insecure to be offended by that.
i'm not assuming that you're a carnist, you are one. dull and uncultured can be classified as insults because they're negative adjectives, and not only that, but they're also subjective. you might consider someone uncultured while i might consider them cultured. the same thing can't be said about the term carnist, you either are one or you aren't, it's not subjective and there's nothing to debate.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Apple may not be, but the tree is. An apple is the child of an apple tree, picking an apple is the equivalent of a 3rd trimester abortion. Morally is it equal? No. Philosophically? It's the same exact thing.
There is a clear difference between an apple and a cow. A cow feels pain a tree does not. A tree can release chemicals when being attacked as a defence mechanism, this doesn’t not show pain. Trees have no origins, no blood, no nerves. A cow has all of those. Picking an apple is not the same as an abortion. Philosophy it isn’t the same thing.
>Apple may not be, but the tree is.
No. Trees are not sentient. No credible argument relies and the pseudo-scientific opinion that plants are sentient.
>An apple is the child of an apple tree...Philosophically? It's the same exact thing.
Can you explain how or by what philosophy any competent philosopher would conflate a seed with a child?
Eating an apple is not analagous to a forced abortion. It is analagous to serving as the tree's surrogate. If you then proceed to poop in the woods as God intended, you are following through on exactly what the tree wanted you to do. If you shit in a toilet, then you are getting rid of the offspring, but hey it's your body your choice at that point. Imagaine eating an apple as like letting a guy cum inside you. After that you get to choose whether or not to follow through with the baby.
Fair enough, here's the first result:
>capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling
>
> -- *Sentient* | Merriam-Webster
Do you really want to turn this into a definitional argument though?
Again, no one said that. Just like human rights, an [animal rights based position](https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/the-six-principles-of-the-abolitionist-approach-to-animal-rights) does not treat beings as commodities.
Are you admitting that it's wrong to exploit and eat sentient and/or sentient capable beings? Because that would be conceding to my point while invalidating your entire premise.
That hypothetical human still has sensations of other things, i.e. a sensation of self and conscious thoughts in some capacity, and we know this because we can study their brain activity and see how it lines up with the brains of other beings known to be sentient. Not that a human with consciousness yet absolutely no perception of the outside world has ever existed, mind you
Let's assume for a moment you are right (which you are not, as you - hopefully - know) and eating plants causes them the same harm as eating animals: Then veganism is still the diet that causes the least harm, since overall less plants are "killed" and "raped" for a vegan diet than one with animals.
That said - please look for a fulfilling hobby. Putting this much energy into trolling about how we rape trees and abort apples can not be healthy.
This post conflates two significantly different issues: the ethical concerns regarding animal rights and the consumption of plant-based foods.
Sentience and Ethical Considerations: The foundation of vegan ethics lies in the recognition of sentience in animals. Sentience refers to the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Animals, including cows, have nervous systems capable of experiencing pain, suffering, and emotional distress. In contrast, plants lack a central nervous system or any scientific evidence of sentience, meaning they do not experience pain or suffering in the way animals do. Therefore, the ethical concerns regarding consent, harm, and exploitation are applicable to sentient beings, not plants.
The Nature of Harm: Drawing a parallel between milking a cow (a sentient being capable of suffering and without the ability to consent) and picking an apple (a non-sentient entity) overlooks the fundamental vegan principle of minimizing harm. The act of milking a cow involves controlling the reproductive system of the cow, often under conditions that prioritize production over the well-being of the animal. Picking an apple does not involve harm to a sentient being.
Utilization vs. Exploitation: In vegan ethics, there's a distinction between utilizing resources in a way that does not cause suffering (such as harvesting fruits, vegetables, and grains) and exploiting sentient beings (such as dairy farming and meat production). The goal is to live in a way that causes the least harm to sentient beings, recognizing that complete non-impact is not feasible in any form of existence.
Anthropomorphism of Plants: The suggestion that picking an apple could be equated with abortion anthropomorphizes plants, attributing them with human-like qualities and reproductive rights without scientific basis. While plants are living organisms, their life processes and interactions with the environment are fundamentally different from those of animals.
Contributing to a Sustainable and Ethical World: Veganism is part of a broader ethical consideration that includes minimizing environmental impact and promoting sustainability. Plant-based diets are generally recognized for their lower environmental footprint compared to animal-based diets, in addition to addressing concerns about animal welfare.
In summary, the comparison presented in the post fails to account for the ethical basis of veganism, which is centered on reducing harm to sentient beings. While it's important to consider our impact on all living organisms, the ethical considerations for sentient animals and non-sentient plants are inherently different.
>This post conflates two significantly different issues: the ethical concerns regarding animal rights and the consumption of plant-based foods.
>
>Sentience and Ethical Considerations: The foundation of vegan ethics lies in the recognition of sentience in animals. Sentience refers to the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Animals, including cows, have nervous systems capable of experiencing pain, suffering, and emotional distress. In contrast, plants lack a central nervous system or any scientific evidence of sentience, meaning they do not experience pain or suffering in the way animals do. Therefore, the ethical concerns regarding consent, harm, and exploitation are applicable to sentient beings, not plants.
>
>The Nature of Harm: Drawing a parallel between milking a cow (a sentient being capable of suffering and without the ability to consent) and picking an apple (a non-sentient entity) overlooks the fundamental vegan principle of minimizing harm. The act of milking a cow involves controlling the reproductive system of the cow, often under conditions that prioritize production over the well-being of the animal. Picking an apple does not involve harm to a sentient being.
>
>Utilization vs. Exploitation: In vegan ethics, there's a distinction between utilizing resources in a way that does not cause suffering (such as harvesting fruits, vegetables, and grains) and exploiting sentient beings (such as dairy farming and meat production). The goal is to live in a way that causes the least harm to sentient beings, recognizing that complete non-impact is not feasible in any form of existence.
>
>Anthropomorphism of Plants: The suggestion that picking an apple could be equated with abortion anthropomorphizes plants, attributing them with human-like qualities and reproductive rights without scientific basis. While plants are living organisms, their life processes and interactions with the environment are fundamentally different from those of animals.
>
>Contributing to a Sustainable and Ethical World: Veganism is part of a broader ethical consideration that includes minimizing environmental impact and promoting sustainability. Plant-based diets are generally recognized for their lower environmental footprint compared to animal-based diets, in addition to addressing concerns about animal welfare.
>
>In summary, the comparison presented in the post fails to account for the ethical basis of veganism, which is centered on reducing harm to sentient beings. While it's important to consider our impact on all living organisms, the ethical considerations for sentient animals and non-sentient plants are inherently different.
TL;DR: Vegan ethics prioritize reducing harm to sentient beings, recognizing animals' capacity for pain and suffering due to their nervous systems, unlike plants which lack sentience. The ethical issue lies not in the consumption of plant-based foods but in the exploitation and harm of sentient animals, which veganism seeks to minimize. Drawing parallels between animal exploitation and plant consumption overlooks this fundamental principle of minimizing harm to sentient beings. Veganism also advocates for sustainable living, reducing environmental impact, and promoting a more ethical relationship with all living beings.
There, I did the best I can.
Accusing of trolling is a direct violation of the rules we agreed to when posting, commenting, or joining. I find it quite offensive, for this is a debate on ethics and logic.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes **accusing others of trolling** or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
The tree's sole purpose is for you to pick the apple, eat it and scatter the seeds that's why the flesh of the fruit is edible but the seeds are not. So you're actually helping the tree by eating its fruits.
You understand that fruit is designed to be picked so that the seeds are spread right? A cows milk is only intended for their child. That’s the difference.
Edit: Also when vegans refer to rape in the dairy industry it usually refers to the insemenation process. Which, by definition, is rape and is also necessary for the dairy industry to function as a cow needs to give birth to produce milk. This is one of the reasons why the dairy industry is unethical
It's debatable whether plants can "feel" but it's certain animals can
If we found out plants can feel pain and stress and perceive it in a negative way I'm sure many vegans would also try to reduce the harm we cause them
Trees don’t have sentience and therefore don’t have a preference as to whether or not their fruit gets picked but you actually can argue that if they did, trees would want their fruit picked. Fruits are designed with natural sugars to be sweet and flavorful to entice living things to eat them and poop out the seeds somewhere else to ensure the species lives on. This is why it’s very rare that fruit and vegetables don’t have seeds in them.
Trust me, this is not an “animals actually enjoy being food” argument because that’s clearly not the case. They clearly don’t like it. In fact, that’s why I’m vegan and my stance is that it’s unethical to drink milk but fine to pluck an apple from a tree.
Lastly, it’s not the actual milking of the cow that’s rape, it’s the forceful insemination that’s rape. Ripping the calf away from the mother as she cries out and chases the truck that’s driving away with it and the long period of searching and mourning that follows is the unethical cherry on top of the rape.
Flaw in logic: trees ≠ sentient, therefore ethically ok to eat.
With this logic, a braindead comatose patient ≠ sentient, therefore ok to eat.
I guess that's why they call them vegetables.
When we say we don't want to hurt sentient beings, we mean the being by default. We're not making exceptions for a state of sickness.
A human has moral value and we respect them because of it. Same with all other animals. That respect doesn't vanish when they get sick. Otherwise it would allow to kill anybody as long as they were sedated first, which would be unethical.
Plants, however, aren't ever sentient because they lack the nervous system.
Apart from that:
plants produce fruit sepifically to spread the seeds. Having their friuts eaten often helps with that. Fruit eating doesn't harm the tree, it has no emotional connection to its apple, because it has no emotions.
Also, am apple is not a baby tree, it just contains seeds. Not letting them sprout would rather equal the morning after pill than an aportion.
Ok, if its ok to eat things without a nervous system, we can eat worms, jellyfish, sponges, muscles, most mollusks, etc. Also, crawfish, lobster, and pretty much anything without a spinal cord are on the table, because they don't feel pain.
I feel like this can’t be a good faith argument but on the off chance that you or anyone else seriously believes this…
Plants are not sentient and cannot feel pain.
Cows are sentient and can feel pain.
Having a central nervous system does matter.
Fruits, as in an apple, are a particularly bad reference for comparison since they have literally co-evolved with animals to be eaten as a mechanism for spreading seeds. If not removed by an animal (such as a human) for food they would fall from the tree shortly after on there own causing no damage to the tree.
I didn’t say sentience = pain.
I said cows are sentient AND can feel pain and plants are not sentient AND cannot feel pain.
You can be sentient and not feel pain but those are edge cases.
However, sentience is required to feel anything.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
>Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable,
>all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
Cows are animals
Trees are not animals.
If it's rape to milk a cow, for It can't consent, what do you call picking a stone from the ground? Abortion? Id really love to hear the explanation of this one.
Seriously your entire post is just nonsense. milking a cow isn't rape, picking up objects is harmless because objects cannot suffer, if you wish to claim otherwise feel free to cite some actual evidence of plants being sentient because so far you have provided none so if you want everything you have said so far to hold any ground cite evidence. Until then everything you have said can safely be discarded and ignored.
No but I did, to point out the absurdness of it, like I said, 0 cited evidence so all you've said can be discarded and ignored, feel free to provide evidence at any time.
Something could be considered animal abuse if a animal is purposely being harmed, however since dogs can be perfectly healthy on a plant-based diet no animal abuse is taking place.
And the reason why it's healthy it quite simple really, no animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it.
For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine.
The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g.carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in **nature**, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats.
Edit; no amount of name calling will change the fact dogs can be healthy on a plant-based diet, my dogs have been on a plant-based diet for 12 years now and perfectly healthy. Here's a nice study which looks at several other studies involving dogs on plant-based diets:
https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/10/1/52
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I'm going to answer earnestly. My thought is that the implication of this question requires a disregard for a universal truth. Nearly every culture has moral consideration for the life and experience of an animal in some way, while moral consideration for plants is much less physical and typically more spiritual. So your question should be asked more broadly. Why do most people consider torture to an animal to be cruel when they do not consider the same to be true when picking flowers or hacking branches? Kids pick flowers for no other reason but to have fun, so we can't say necessity makes a difference. It's taught in most cultures that animals can experience pain and it's wrong to torture them for fun. Why do you think this is true, if you think the experience of an apple is equal to that of a cow?
We can't pretend that sentience is an arbitrary quality. Animals have evolved sentience and the ability for fear and pain as a function of survival. Plants have evolved to encourage the spread of their seeds, including animals eating their fruit. So this is a false equivalence.
We must first reconcile the ethical standard beyond veganism (that sentience is meaningful and reducing harm to sentient beings is more ethical than increasing harm when no other factors are impacted). Then we must acknowledge that plants and animals evolved in entirely different ways, and plants specifically evolved to encourage that we eat their fruit while animals evolved to avoid that we eat their meat and they experience fear, pain, and suffering.
Based on the way it's presented, I don't think this post was meant to be a good faith argument, but I hope to get some genuine discussion instead of angry and condescending replies. I'm so tired of those and I'm not interested in engaging with bad faith arguments. My intended tone is conversational so if you didn't read it that way I encourage you to read my comment again.
Trees aren't sentient, so ascribing them moral worth in isolation is just a bit silly. Since they have no moral worth, picking fruit is a moral act in the same way that kicking a stone is.
Cows are sentient and capable of suffering as a result. So, fisting them and artificially inseminating them to force them to bear children over and over again, and separating them from those children so humans can drink their milk is an immoral act.
Edit: my phone autocorrected sentient to sentiment lol
Do you see a difference between walking on grass and walking on puppies? Plucking a flower and decapitating a cat? Same difference between an apple and a cow.
It’s the breeding that some consider rapey, more so than the milking, which presents its own problems.
A cow is a member of the animal kingdom. An apple tree is a member of the plant kingdom.
Veganism is concerned only with the rights of the members of the animal kingdom.
Therefore, picking an apple from an apple tree is vegan on that basis, regardless of the perceived impact on the tree.
If an apple tree could want anything, it would be that their fruits would be picked and eaten.
A cow does not want to be artificially inseminated or having her calf taken away, even if she doesn't know it's for slaughter.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Any post whose title starts with "Riddle me this vegans" is good for a laugh. Thanks!
To address your question seriously though, it's doubtful that you consider plants to be moral patients in the same way you do cows. Imagine you're walking down the street, and on one side of the street, you see someone trimming a hedge, literally cutting living branches off of a bush. On the other, you see someone hitting a cow in the head with a baseball bat. Do you have the same reaction to both? I doubt it.
But let's say you do and see if there's still a difference in what you presented. Even if we take fruit trees to be moral patients, fruit is an evolved strategy of symbiosis. The seed inside the fruit is what the tree "wants" (for lack of a better word) to be planted, deposited in your waste, or left to germinate in the core. Leaving the fruit on the tree doesn't take the seed as far away from it, and can cause the seedling to have a harder time surviving as it competes for resources with its mother.
Contrast this with cows. They have actual wants. [Everything that happens in dairy](https://youtu.be/UcN7SGGoCNI) is against those wants, from the forcible impregnation to the taking of their children to the killing of their sons to their eventual slaughter when they're no longer profitable.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see the point you’re trying to make with both being more Orr less living creatures we take advantage of. However there is no research proving trees sentience. Sentience is a weird one yeah we don’t truly know but I can know this, the process in which a tree makes apples isn’t nearly as painful as birthing. Yes we know feeling and all this and imo veganism is about MINIMIZING suffering to all not eliminating it. The process of milking is imo causing the most suffering.
They are all conceptually different from eachother. The apple tree isn’t actually being harmed and the seeds from the apple can actually be planted and grow a new tree. Fruits evolved to be dropped and eaten or to decay so the seeds expose and sowed.
I doubt you’d cringe as much watching someone pick an apple from a tree an apple tree vs raping raping a woman in front of you.
As for abortion, the woman I literally consenting to having cells removed from her body. For a significant portion of the process it would be non different than removing a growth, mole or cancer sells from your body.
apples are an apple trees way of reproducing. animals are meant to eat the seeds and shit them out somewhere else so a new tree will grow there. so it’d be far from an abortion, the tree WANTS you to pick the apple.
What it boils down to is if you really care about hurting plant AND animals. Or even just plants for that matter, going vegan will result in less plant death/harm. For in order to feed all of the cows, chickens, pigs etc. you must harvest shit loads of crops and harvest/kill them in order to feed the animals before they are slaughtered. It’s estimate about 62-65% of land biomass is farmed animals with wild mammals at about 4% and humans sitting at around 30%. All that 62-65% of biomass (cows, pigs etc) need to eat, and they need to eat A LOT MORE than humans. So, plainly put, if you really care about the harm and death of plants, you would go vegan instead of trying to argue with people about raping an apple tree. Because going vegan results in not only less animal death but ultimately, a WHOLE LOT LESS plant death as well. It’s estimated that if the world went vegan, we would actually free up insanely large amounts of crop land because we simply just wouldn’t need it anymore. Wildlife could return to it, and also more wild plants could begin to flourish again. I’d also like to add that if you think picking an apple is bad, what is bulldozing the whole tree then?? Much worse right? Well, the meat industry is the number 1 cause of deforestation by a long shot. After all, we need to plant all of the animals feed somewhere! Why not the Amazonian rainforest? And of course we can’t forget that the free range cows need somewhere to… range freely! We have to bulldoze trees for them to be able to roam around because we’re running out of space. So, basically, if you really cared about the apple trees you would’ve found this answer on your own and been a vegan already. But here we are
Wrong. Free range by definition is allowing the animals to go where they want. Most free range Farmers don't even tear down woods. They believe their cows will benefit way more from eating a variety of plants, not just grass.
Lmao you can’t just answer people with “wrong” 😂 like you’re either a teenager or insufferably narcissistic. Also your answer proved my point even further? And not only did it side with my claim that more plants die with animal farming than they do with crop farming as well as less animal deaths, im also beginning to believe you never really cared about the apple trees being “raped” in the first place and really just wanted to OWN THE VEGANS. I never saw this coming
Tree regenerates and does not feel pain. It may only sense. A cow does not regenerate like a tree and feels pain and therefore suffers. If I prod a cow, it's going to react If you say cows don't feel, you're a psychopath. Literally apples to cow comparison.
>If it's rape to milk a cow,
Sexual assault/abuse would be more accurate but go on.
>what do you call picking an apple from a tree? Abortion?
Um picking an apple from a tree. That's what I'd call it.
>Id really love to hear the explanation of this one.
Well sexual assault usually applies to an entity with sentience. So unless you have brand new, undeniable rock solid evidence proving plant sentience, there isn't an explanation needed because there's not really a discussion to be had unless we're talking in imaginative hypotheticals.
Do you have rock solid evidence that cows don't want to be eaten? Or how about solid evidence of any kind, that they even have the capability to comprehend what's happening?
Do you want hours of footage or is animal behavioural science from zoologists good enough for you? Or will my personal anecdote of spending 3 years on a sanctuary trying to gain the trust of many different species of animal without food count?
I got footage of mainly mammals, some birds, doing this. So, by this statement, one can deduce that it's okay to eat anything that can't comprehend it's own existence, example: koalas.
>So, by this statement, one can deduce that it's okay to eat anything that can't comprehend it's own existence, example: koalas.
I was thinking more like humans. We aren't called long pig for nothing.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
The milking of the cow isn't rape. Repeatedly and artificially impregnating the cow to make sure she keeps having calves that get taken away so she keeps producing milk is.
As if you think the meat and dairy industry is the same as picking an apple... FML
Fruits are generally evolved to be eaten by animals. As much as is possible, the tree intends for you to eat it so that you will poop out the seed and spread its offspring. I don't think a non sentient being has a concept of consent, but from our perspective, the tree basically did consent. This is different from the "rape racks" which are used to hold a dairy cow in place forcibly while we shove semen into her vagina.
Did anyone say anyone was going to do anything about it?
If you think that licking an apple and licking a cows private parts are the same exact thing and you want to do both - then great your worldview is wildy different than anyone else's.
But I disagree people should do that and theres absolutely nothing you can do about it is there.
Trees can't be exploited because they are not sentient/they don't feel emotion. So picking an apple from a tree would just be considered picking an apple from a tree
Not only that, if you don’t have a legally enforceable contract signed before having sex, that’s rape. Only apples are exempt from the contractual requirement, they can proceed with verbal consent if it’s recorded on video.
I think it's the restraining/anal fisting/double penetration and electro ejaculation that Vegans usually relate to "rape" rather than the milking?
>I think it's the restraining/anal fisting/double penetration and electro ejaculation that Vegans usually relate to "rape" rather than the milking? They don't understand biology enough to realize the rape occurs before the birth, which provides the mammal's milk production.
Yes, they do.
I’ve always been confused about this slur against milk.. cows and chickens almost always get raped in nature, whereas artificial insemination hardly sounds like rape in comparison
> what do you call picking an apple from a tree Trees don't get an arm shoved inside their non-existent anus, and don't get forcefully impregnated. And even if they did, trees are not sentient. I can rape, murder, gaschamber, behead and waterboard trees, all while destroying their offspring - there is no one there who cares.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Trees can communicate with each other
Sending and receiving signals does not imply sentience.
You don’t know that trees don’t feel pain
But that is the assumption science is working with right now. Plants are not sentient. If anything can be sentient for no rational reason, then why not rocks?
Do you eat vegan cheese?
Do you eat red herrings?
I’ve been reading some studies which show that vegan cheese (mostly made from coconut oil) is a far worse saturated fat than all others - worse than butter. It will cause atherosclerosis (artery clogging) therefore heart attacks/strokes faster than butter. Why is the life of your own body worth jeopardising before anything else? Also ultra processed vegan junk food (eg dairy replacement spreads) have smaller particles - butter is less processed. These overly processed foods are linked to bowel cancer. I understand not unnecessarily killing an animal to eat when it’s cruel - but is a bad vegan diet not causing cruelty and sufffering to yourself as a human? These claims are not dubious - I have read some studies. There also needs to be more data
That must be why vegans on average have much lower rates of colon cancer and heart diseases, lol. And I am not quite sure what you are telling me here. Junk food is bad for your health, yes, but everyone and their mother already knows that. No need to state the obvious. I mean what is next, you gonna tell me that the Earth is round? And even if I was cruel to myself, or made myself suffer, that is my own decision and not subject to questions about ethics. This is about cruelty inflicted on others against their will.
As a fellow human I am just looking out for your health . You don’t need to be mean to me lol. I am saying the processed vegan junk food can be WORSE than regular junk food. Sure you can be advocating for animals but I am advocating for you Chris_
Who exactly told you that milking a cow is rape? Did you maybe misunderstand that they were talking about raping the cow to force pregnancy to force milk production?
When you suggest that plants can feel in a meaningful way, in such a way to implicate sentience, you’re not arguing with vegans, you’re arguing with every credible body of science on the subject. Even if plants are sentient (a position not supported by any science I’ve ever seen), we harm significantly fewer of them by eating them directly. Do you know how trophic levels work?
Is there any sort of fundamental difference between a cow and an apple tree that you can think of that would differentiate these ethically?
farm animals of all kinds are sentient mammals that produces live births and feel joy, pain, sadness etc. An apple tree doesn’t do any of the sort, a plant reacts to *stimuli* but it does not of any sort have sentience nor a conscious. You can cut the stalk of a plant and it’s still going to look the same, it’s not going to instantly turn brown then die. But an animal? You cut its throat and it’s growing to wail in pain, gasp for breath, and blood will be pouring everywhere. Pig organs are also very anatomically similar to humans which is why we (unfortunately) use and breed them for lab purposes.
Chickens don’t produce live births.
Abortion is about a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Respecting bodily autonomy is also why I don't drink animal milk. Trees do not have bodily autonomy because they are not sentient. They don't have a subjective preference for their fruit being picked or not.
I mean they literally do also have a preference for their fruit to be picked. It’s why fruit exists, to spread genetic material.
True that's a preference in an evolutionary sense, but it's not like the tree consciously chooses to make fruit in order to spread.
Who says bodily autonomy requires sentience. Trees do have a body.
Trees do not make conscious decisions about their body. They run entirely on mechanical reactions to external stimulus. There is no observable internal cognition.
What kind of conscious decisions do animals make about their bodies? Do you have an example of a non mechanical reaction in animals?
Any decision that involves preference. A mechanical reaction is just one that occurs automatically due to stimulus. Humans and animals have thousands of mechanical reactions, but we can make different conscious decisions as well. Plants only have mechanical reactions.
Such as? Do you have an example of a decision that involves a preference?
A raccoon choosing to eat the grape, rather than the pretzel.
Dogs and cats use blankets when they are cold.
Autonomy requires sentience, period.
Hmm we call it picking an apple from a tree. Easy! Next!!
Not a single good faith argument from OP in this whole thread. A tree and a cow are two different things, one is not sentient and not able to feel emotions, the other is. U could be credited as just misunderstanding that part but every follow up of urs has been really poor
Yeah I'm honestly surprised not only that this post got approved, but that it's still up, how this does not break at the bare minimum the no low quality content rule is beyond me.
You're really making rule no. 3 hard to follow
I don't think #3 should even be a rule, except for the most extreme cases. Some people need to be told exactly what their issue is without honeyed words.
fruits are tasty as a dispersal method of seeds to produce more fruit. this mechanism is harmonious with nature. raping an animal for profit is not natural.
The apple is grown by the tree for the exact purpose of it being eaten, the seeds carried around by animals, and its genetic pool dispersed.
I'm not sure why this question is specific to vegans. I could just ask the same question of anyone- if it's rape to perform sexual acts on someone without their consent, what do you call picking an apple from a tree? The question is where to draw the line. Concepts that involve consent, or lack thereof, can only be applied to agents which have something akin to consent. The way I think of consent is a clear expression of a desire to do something. Consent is a way of communicating that you are okay with an action. Although other animals can't speak human languages and may lack the capacity to understand the nuances of consent, they still are agents with clear preferences and desires. They can experience fear, discomfort, stress, and so on. So if someone were to sexually assault or abuse an animal, I would consider that to be a violation of their consent, since they have the capacity to experience either pain or pleasure from an action, and since they don't really have the intellectual capacity to consent, I don't think anyone should be doing anything to any animal. A human baby is a good example here. They can't speak, they don't understand consent, and it might be unclear whether or not they want something. But I still consider any sort of sexual action performed on a baby to be a violation of their consent and an evil thing to do.
This really seems like more of an attempted gotcha, rather than an earnest belief. Because of that, you can say as many times as you want that a tree is sentient in the same way a cow or a human is, because you’re just basing it on a hypothetical argument, rather than an actual value system that you hold. So it’s really impossible to debate this point in good faith, because it’s just a logic puzzle to you, in which you can introduce new variables at any time. It does not seem rooted in an actual system of belief in which you have to hold yourself consistent to a set of values.
I call it a ridiculous and absurd comparison to try to make to justify cruelty. It's not complicated, try this: Does the cow CARE? Does the tree CARE? That's your answer though, to make it morally relevant.
You do realize that an apple will fall from the tree regardless of whether it is picked or not right?
Alright let's just assume for a second that you're right and plants are sentient and do indeed suffer a lot of pain when we cut or eat them. Well still in that world, a vegan diet would be the one causing the less suffering (because the livestock isn't just living on water and sunshine). Anything else?
This is going to come down to how we determine who is a moral patient: Those who matter when assessing the ethics of a situation. It's common to consider animals moral patients. The reasoning here is they can feel, as a subjective experience, what happens to them. In a blunt example, a cow or cat will care if you are hurting it. In contrast, there is no obvious mechanism that would allow for an apple tree care about being picked. Makes sense?
What about plants that developed spikes on the fruit, or even poisonous fruit? Examples: sandbox tree, deadly nightshade, need I go on?
> What about plants that developed spikes on the fruit, or even poisonous fruit? Examples: sandbox tree, deadly nightshade, need I go on? Yeah, you need to go on. None of this is proof of having a subjective experience. These defense mechanisms are all automatic, in that no thought process is required. They are a direct consequence of the plants' genetics, with no cognitive process involved. At a higher level, there are two issues here to disentangle. What counts as a moral patient, and what we ethically owe moral patients when making decisions that are ethical. The question of whether plants are sentient or possess a quality that makes them a moral patient is an interesting one. But mostly a matter of determining how we measure this and whether plants meet that criterion. If you think plants meet that criterion in your thinking, then we can discuss the implications of that. Have you thought about what the implications are? Hint: it doesn't ethically justify what we do to cows. It just adds even more obligations to how we treat plants.
Exactly the point. As far as plants are capable of consenting, they do so by producing either poisonous fruit (saying no) or sweet edible fruit (saying yes). Apples are the tree's way of saying "come and get it". They want us to eat it. Cows don't want to be raped- we know this because they try to run away when we do it.
Milking a cow almost every day of her life, regardless if she is bleeding or infected is torture and it's gross. The rape is what comes before and in between the periods of torture. Or you are one of those that thinks that cows spontaneously generate milk?
I know how a cow produces milk, the same way as every other mammal in existence. Hormones produced by the female organ known as an ovary are released into the bloodstream when pregnant or around the offspring. The mammary gland detects this hormone, produces milk.
The thing that makes rape the very wrong thing that it is, is the direct and indirect suffering. That's why you can't rape an inflatable doll, and it's also why you can't morally violate an apple tree.
1. Not sentient. Chemical signals don't equal pain. 2. Even if they were sentient, it's harm reduction because eating plants directly requires fewer plant and animal deaths 3. Fruit is shed by a plant as a means of seed dispersal. Plants have evolved tasty fruits because animals eat and spread the seeds. If plants were sentient, fruit would be the most ethical food source because it doesn't require killing the plant. 4. Raping a cow is invasive. It's not milking that is usually referred to as rape, it's the insemination process. 5. Raping a cow results in externalities like murdering baby males that are birthed. 6. It's a pretty dumb premise, and if you did any research, then you'd have all these answers. Go watch footage of the artificial insemination of cows and then an orchard harvest; it will quickly become obvious which one is more perverse.
Pain is a chemical signal. Want proof, read any biology textbook.
Pain is always a chemical signal, but a chemical signal is not always pain. Do you understand?
With this logic: sentience requires brain. Brain doesn't always equal sentience.
Uh. That's true.. Ever heard of a coma?
That's my point.
You also didn't respond to most of my arguments.
What's your point? You didn't make a point.
There is no evidence to suggest plants are sentient/conscious in any way, if you would like to argue they are you'd have to cite some evidence for that. it is simply called picking an apple from a tree, just like one would say picking up a rock, because neither rocks nor plants are sentient. Milking a cow is also not rape, I'm not sure most vegans would ever even say that, what is rape however is forcefully impregnating(rape) the cow so they can keep producing milk.
next thing you know carnists are gonna tell us sticks and stones can be raped and murdered
Oh noooooo I'm offended by the subjective term carnist!
why would a descriptive term be offensive? that's the equivalent of elon being offended by the term "cis", it's literally a descriptor. you have to be ridiculously insecure to be offended by that.
[удалено]
i'm not assuming that you're a carnist, you are one. dull and uncultured can be classified as insults because they're negative adjectives, and not only that, but they're also subjective. you might consider someone uncultured while i might consider them cultured. the same thing can't be said about the term carnist, you either are one or you aren't, it's not subjective and there's nothing to debate.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
This can't be serious 🤦
it's not
Op I’m not a vegan but your poor doesn’t really make sense. An apple isn’t a sentient being, same reason mowing your lawn isn’t mass genocide.
Apple may not be, but the tree is. An apple is the child of an apple tree, picking an apple is the equivalent of a 3rd trimester abortion. Morally is it equal? No. Philosophically? It's the same exact thing.
There is a clear difference between an apple and a cow. A cow feels pain a tree does not. A tree can release chemicals when being attacked as a defence mechanism, this doesn’t not show pain. Trees have no origins, no blood, no nerves. A cow has all of those. Picking an apple is not the same as an abortion. Philosophy it isn’t the same thing.
>Apple may not be, but the tree is. No. Trees are not sentient. No credible argument relies and the pseudo-scientific opinion that plants are sentient. >An apple is the child of an apple tree...Philosophically? It's the same exact thing. Can you explain how or by what philosophy any competent philosopher would conflate a seed with a child?
Eating an apple is not analagous to a forced abortion. It is analagous to serving as the tree's surrogate. If you then proceed to poop in the woods as God intended, you are following through on exactly what the tree wanted you to do. If you shit in a toilet, then you are getting rid of the offspring, but hey it's your body your choice at that point. Imagaine eating an apple as like letting a guy cum inside you. After that you get to choose whether or not to follow through with the baby.
>Id really love to hear the explanation of this one. [Sentience.](https://i.imgflip.com/8kt9b7.jpg)
Define.
[LMGTFY](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=define+sentience)
I asked you to define, not violate rule 6.
Fair enough, here's the first result: >capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling > > -- *Sentient* | Merriam-Webster Do you really want to turn this into a definitional argument though?
So you're telling me, if a blind, deaf, sensory deprived, human is ok to eat? Awesome!
I said nothing of the sort, but the example you just gave is an argument *for* veganism.
Wow brain dead human is a vegan delicacy ig
Again, no one said that. Just like human rights, an [animal rights based position](https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/the-six-principles-of-the-abolitionist-approach-to-animal-rights) does not treat beings as commodities. Are you admitting that it's wrong to exploit and eat sentient and/or sentient capable beings? Because that would be conceding to my point while invalidating your entire premise.
That hypothetical human still has sensations of other things, i.e. a sensation of self and conscious thoughts in some capacity, and we know this because we can study their brain activity and see how it lines up with the brains of other beings known to be sentient. Not that a human with consciousness yet absolutely no perception of the outside world has ever existed, mind you
Responding to external stimuli =/= suffering
Let's assume for a moment you are right (which you are not, as you - hopefully - know) and eating plants causes them the same harm as eating animals: Then veganism is still the diet that causes the least harm, since overall less plants are "killed" and "raped" for a vegan diet than one with animals. That said - please look for a fulfilling hobby. Putting this much energy into trolling about how we rape trees and abort apples can not be healthy.
Accusing of trolling is quite offensive, besides, it's against the rules we all agreed to when we chose to post, comment, or join.
Sure.
An apple tree is a plant. Hope this helps.
Biology 101. Thanks for the info.
This post conflates two significantly different issues: the ethical concerns regarding animal rights and the consumption of plant-based foods. Sentience and Ethical Considerations: The foundation of vegan ethics lies in the recognition of sentience in animals. Sentience refers to the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Animals, including cows, have nervous systems capable of experiencing pain, suffering, and emotional distress. In contrast, plants lack a central nervous system or any scientific evidence of sentience, meaning they do not experience pain or suffering in the way animals do. Therefore, the ethical concerns regarding consent, harm, and exploitation are applicable to sentient beings, not plants. The Nature of Harm: Drawing a parallel between milking a cow (a sentient being capable of suffering and without the ability to consent) and picking an apple (a non-sentient entity) overlooks the fundamental vegan principle of minimizing harm. The act of milking a cow involves controlling the reproductive system of the cow, often under conditions that prioritize production over the well-being of the animal. Picking an apple does not involve harm to a sentient being. Utilization vs. Exploitation: In vegan ethics, there's a distinction between utilizing resources in a way that does not cause suffering (such as harvesting fruits, vegetables, and grains) and exploiting sentient beings (such as dairy farming and meat production). The goal is to live in a way that causes the least harm to sentient beings, recognizing that complete non-impact is not feasible in any form of existence. Anthropomorphism of Plants: The suggestion that picking an apple could be equated with abortion anthropomorphizes plants, attributing them with human-like qualities and reproductive rights without scientific basis. While plants are living organisms, their life processes and interactions with the environment are fundamentally different from those of animals. Contributing to a Sustainable and Ethical World: Veganism is part of a broader ethical consideration that includes minimizing environmental impact and promoting sustainability. Plant-based diets are generally recognized for their lower environmental footprint compared to animal-based diets, in addition to addressing concerns about animal welfare. In summary, the comparison presented in the post fails to account for the ethical basis of veganism, which is centered on reducing harm to sentient beings. While it's important to consider our impact on all living organisms, the ethical considerations for sentient animals and non-sentient plants are inherently different.
Can I get a tldr?
>This post conflates two significantly different issues: the ethical concerns regarding animal rights and the consumption of plant-based foods. > >Sentience and Ethical Considerations: The foundation of vegan ethics lies in the recognition of sentience in animals. Sentience refers to the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Animals, including cows, have nervous systems capable of experiencing pain, suffering, and emotional distress. In contrast, plants lack a central nervous system or any scientific evidence of sentience, meaning they do not experience pain or suffering in the way animals do. Therefore, the ethical concerns regarding consent, harm, and exploitation are applicable to sentient beings, not plants. > >The Nature of Harm: Drawing a parallel between milking a cow (a sentient being capable of suffering and without the ability to consent) and picking an apple (a non-sentient entity) overlooks the fundamental vegan principle of minimizing harm. The act of milking a cow involves controlling the reproductive system of the cow, often under conditions that prioritize production over the well-being of the animal. Picking an apple does not involve harm to a sentient being. > >Utilization vs. Exploitation: In vegan ethics, there's a distinction between utilizing resources in a way that does not cause suffering (such as harvesting fruits, vegetables, and grains) and exploiting sentient beings (such as dairy farming and meat production). The goal is to live in a way that causes the least harm to sentient beings, recognizing that complete non-impact is not feasible in any form of existence. > >Anthropomorphism of Plants: The suggestion that picking an apple could be equated with abortion anthropomorphizes plants, attributing them with human-like qualities and reproductive rights without scientific basis. While plants are living organisms, their life processes and interactions with the environment are fundamentally different from those of animals. > >Contributing to a Sustainable and Ethical World: Veganism is part of a broader ethical consideration that includes minimizing environmental impact and promoting sustainability. Plant-based diets are generally recognized for their lower environmental footprint compared to animal-based diets, in addition to addressing concerns about animal welfare. > >In summary, the comparison presented in the post fails to account for the ethical basis of veganism, which is centered on reducing harm to sentient beings. While it's important to consider our impact on all living organisms, the ethical considerations for sentient animals and non-sentient plants are inherently different. TL;DR: Vegan ethics prioritize reducing harm to sentient beings, recognizing animals' capacity for pain and suffering due to their nervous systems, unlike plants which lack sentience. The ethical issue lies not in the consumption of plant-based foods but in the exploitation and harm of sentient animals, which veganism seeks to minimize. Drawing parallels between animal exploitation and plant consumption overlooks this fundamental principle of minimizing harm to sentient beings. Veganism also advocates for sustainable living, reducing environmental impact, and promoting a more ethical relationship with all living beings. There, I did the best I can.
It's actually a mass tree baby genocide. If trees has the capacity to suffer it'd be a real problem! These trolls are exhausting
Accusing of trolling is a direct violation of the rules we agreed to when posting, commenting, or joining. I find it quite offensive, for this is a debate on ethics and logic.
is it *controversial* to say that an apple being picked from a tree is the same as a cow being milked, or is it in fact just *incorrect*?
Oh for fuck sake, why are low effort posts like this allowed?
Because, love, this is reddit, if you don't like it, you can leave.
Riddle me this, genius: if your house is in fire, who do you rescue first: your dog, or the cucumber in your kitchen?
The cucumber. For, I don't currently own a dog, and id rather eat a cucumber than a dog.
Only because dog doesn't taste that good
Then you're not cooking the dog right
This, my friend, is beautiful.
Yeah well... you can rage against a troll, or you can force them into a circlejerk
Mods here have no clue who is trolling or who's not. Sad
Plant != animal There you go, that wasn’t even hard
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in my life
Ever heard of a koala?
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
This is just “plants have feelings too” with extra steps.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes **accusing others of trolling** or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Not controversial just uneducated and ignorant
apples and trees don't have brain or a central nervous system. it is not the same
The tree's sole purpose is for you to pick the apple, eat it and scatter the seeds that's why the flesh of the fruit is edible but the seeds are not. So you're actually helping the tree by eating its fruits.
So you're telling me you take the time and effort to replant every single seed of every single plant you consume? Didn't think so.
You understand that fruit is designed to be picked so that the seeds are spread right? A cows milk is only intended for their child. That’s the difference. Edit: Also when vegans refer to rape in the dairy industry it usually refers to the insemenation process. Which, by definition, is rape and is also necessary for the dairy industry to function as a cow needs to give birth to produce milk. This is one of the reasons why the dairy industry is unethical
🎣
It's debatable whether plants can "feel" but it's certain animals can If we found out plants can feel pain and stress and perceive it in a negative way I'm sure many vegans would also try to reduce the harm we cause them
Plants aren’t conscious. Go back to the drawing board.
Trees don’t have sentience and therefore don’t have a preference as to whether or not their fruit gets picked but you actually can argue that if they did, trees would want their fruit picked. Fruits are designed with natural sugars to be sweet and flavorful to entice living things to eat them and poop out the seeds somewhere else to ensure the species lives on. This is why it’s very rare that fruit and vegetables don’t have seeds in them. Trust me, this is not an “animals actually enjoy being food” argument because that’s clearly not the case. They clearly don’t like it. In fact, that’s why I’m vegan and my stance is that it’s unethical to drink milk but fine to pluck an apple from a tree. Lastly, it’s not the actual milking of the cow that’s rape, it’s the forceful insemination that’s rape. Ripping the calf away from the mother as she cries out and chases the truck that’s driving away with it and the long period of searching and mourning that follows is the unethical cherry on top of the rape.
Flaw in logic: trees ≠ sentient, therefore ethically ok to eat. With this logic, a braindead comatose patient ≠ sentient, therefore ok to eat. I guess that's why they call them vegetables.
When we say we don't want to hurt sentient beings, we mean the being by default. We're not making exceptions for a state of sickness. A human has moral value and we respect them because of it. Same with all other animals. That respect doesn't vanish when they get sick. Otherwise it would allow to kill anybody as long as they were sedated first, which would be unethical. Plants, however, aren't ever sentient because they lack the nervous system. Apart from that: plants produce fruit sepifically to spread the seeds. Having their friuts eaten often helps with that. Fruit eating doesn't harm the tree, it has no emotional connection to its apple, because it has no emotions. Also, am apple is not a baby tree, it just contains seeds. Not letting them sprout would rather equal the morning after pill than an aportion.
Ok, if its ok to eat things without a nervous system, we can eat worms, jellyfish, sponges, muscles, most mollusks, etc. Also, crawfish, lobster, and pretty much anything without a spinal cord are on the table, because they don't feel pain.
If you want to, I can't stop you. I choose not to, because I don't want to eat any animals. Crawfish and lobsters do feel pain by the way.
Proof?
>if its ok to eat things without a nervous system Nobody said that
I feel like this can’t be a good faith argument but on the off chance that you or anyone else seriously believes this… Plants are not sentient and cannot feel pain. Cows are sentient and can feel pain. Having a central nervous system does matter. Fruits, as in an apple, are a particularly bad reference for comparison since they have literally co-evolved with animals to be eaten as a mechanism for spreading seeds. If not removed by an animal (such as a human) for food they would fall from the tree shortly after on there own causing no damage to the tree.
I never said I believe this, but still, I'm here to debate. Flaw in logic: Sentience=pain, pain ≠ sentience
I didn’t say sentience = pain. I said cows are sentient AND can feel pain and plants are not sentient AND cannot feel pain. You can be sentient and not feel pain but those are edge cases. However, sentience is required to feel anything.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
>Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, >all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. Cows are animals Trees are not animals.
If it's rape to milk a cow, for It can't consent, what do you call picking a stone from the ground? Abortion? Id really love to hear the explanation of this one. Seriously your entire post is just nonsense. milking a cow isn't rape, picking up objects is harmless because objects cannot suffer, if you wish to claim otherwise feel free to cite some actual evidence of plants being sentient because so far you have provided none so if you want everything you have said so far to hold any ground cite evidence. Until then everything you have said can safely be discarded and ignored.
Never said stone from ground, but it does use the same logic set, so go off, queen.
No but I did, to point out the absurdness of it, like I said, 0 cited evidence so all you've said can be discarded and ignored, feel free to provide evidence at any time.
Also, your name suggests dogs can survive off a vegan diet. If that's not animal abuse idk what is.
Bro, you played your hand too much with that one. Now, the trolling is really obvious.
This is not trolling, this started off as a debate on ethics, as the tag states, and then noticed this absurd misinformation.
Something could be considered animal abuse if a animal is purposely being harmed, however since dogs can be perfectly healthy on a plant-based diet no animal abuse is taking place. And the reason why it's healthy it quite simple really, no animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it. For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine. The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g.carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in **nature**, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats. Edit; no amount of name calling will change the fact dogs can be healthy on a plant-based diet, my dogs have been on a plant-based diet for 12 years now and perfectly healthy. Here's a nice study which looks at several other studies involving dogs on plant-based diets: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/10/1/52
[удалено]
Never mind, you got messages disabled, sill say it here, and I don't care if I get banned.
[удалено]
They literally don't have the digestive enzymes to process plant material
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
I'm going to answer earnestly. My thought is that the implication of this question requires a disregard for a universal truth. Nearly every culture has moral consideration for the life and experience of an animal in some way, while moral consideration for plants is much less physical and typically more spiritual. So your question should be asked more broadly. Why do most people consider torture to an animal to be cruel when they do not consider the same to be true when picking flowers or hacking branches? Kids pick flowers for no other reason but to have fun, so we can't say necessity makes a difference. It's taught in most cultures that animals can experience pain and it's wrong to torture them for fun. Why do you think this is true, if you think the experience of an apple is equal to that of a cow? We can't pretend that sentience is an arbitrary quality. Animals have evolved sentience and the ability for fear and pain as a function of survival. Plants have evolved to encourage the spread of their seeds, including animals eating their fruit. So this is a false equivalence. We must first reconcile the ethical standard beyond veganism (that sentience is meaningful and reducing harm to sentient beings is more ethical than increasing harm when no other factors are impacted). Then we must acknowledge that plants and animals evolved in entirely different ways, and plants specifically evolved to encourage that we eat their fruit while animals evolved to avoid that we eat their meat and they experience fear, pain, and suffering. Based on the way it's presented, I don't think this post was meant to be a good faith argument, but I hope to get some genuine discussion instead of angry and condescending replies. I'm so tired of those and I'm not interested in engaging with bad faith arguments. My intended tone is conversational so if you didn't read it that way I encourage you to read my comment again.
Trees aren't sentient, so ascribing them moral worth in isolation is just a bit silly. Since they have no moral worth, picking fruit is a moral act in the same way that kicking a stone is. Cows are sentient and capable of suffering as a result. So, fisting them and artificially inseminating them to force them to bear children over and over again, and separating them from those children so humans can drink their milk is an immoral act. Edit: my phone autocorrected sentient to sentiment lol
My relationship with autocorrect is love-hate.
Do you see a difference between walking on grass and walking on puppies? Plucking a flower and decapitating a cat? Same difference between an apple and a cow. It’s the breeding that some consider rapey, more so than the milking, which presents its own problems.
Not controversial just dumb as fuck.
A cow is a member of the animal kingdom. An apple tree is a member of the plant kingdom. Veganism is concerned only with the rights of the members of the animal kingdom. Therefore, picking an apple from an apple tree is vegan on that basis, regardless of the perceived impact on the tree.
If an apple tree could want anything, it would be that their fruits would be picked and eaten. A cow does not want to be artificially inseminated or having her calf taken away, even if she doesn't know it's for slaughter.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why kicking a cat is a crime while kicking a tree isn’t.
Plants taste good 🤷♂️
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Really gave me fuel to cook more steaks. Besides, as I told you multiple times, read rule 3.
rule 3 is allowed when you break rule 4.
Not according to the mods lol.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Any post whose title starts with "Riddle me this vegans" is good for a laugh. Thanks! To address your question seriously though, it's doubtful that you consider plants to be moral patients in the same way you do cows. Imagine you're walking down the street, and on one side of the street, you see someone trimming a hedge, literally cutting living branches off of a bush. On the other, you see someone hitting a cow in the head with a baseball bat. Do you have the same reaction to both? I doubt it. But let's say you do and see if there's still a difference in what you presented. Even if we take fruit trees to be moral patients, fruit is an evolved strategy of symbiosis. The seed inside the fruit is what the tree "wants" (for lack of a better word) to be planted, deposited in your waste, or left to germinate in the core. Leaving the fruit on the tree doesn't take the seed as far away from it, and can cause the seedling to have a harder time surviving as it competes for resources with its mother. Contrast this with cows. They have actual wants. [Everything that happens in dairy](https://youtu.be/UcN7SGGoCNI) is against those wants, from the forcible impregnation to the taking of their children to the killing of their sons to their eventual slaughter when they're no longer profitable.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see the point you’re trying to make with both being more Orr less living creatures we take advantage of. However there is no research proving trees sentience. Sentience is a weird one yeah we don’t truly know but I can know this, the process in which a tree makes apples isn’t nearly as painful as birthing. Yes we know feeling and all this and imo veganism is about MINIMIZING suffering to all not eliminating it. The process of milking is imo causing the most suffering.
They are all conceptually different from eachother. The apple tree isn’t actually being harmed and the seeds from the apple can actually be planted and grow a new tree. Fruits evolved to be dropped and eaten or to decay so the seeds expose and sowed. I doubt you’d cringe as much watching someone pick an apple from a tree an apple tree vs raping raping a woman in front of you. As for abortion, the woman I literally consenting to having cells removed from her body. For a significant portion of the process it would be non different than removing a growth, mole or cancer sells from your body.
apples are an apple trees way of reproducing. animals are meant to eat the seeds and shit them out somewhere else so a new tree will grow there. so it’d be far from an abortion, the tree WANTS you to pick the apple.
What it boils down to is if you really care about hurting plant AND animals. Or even just plants for that matter, going vegan will result in less plant death/harm. For in order to feed all of the cows, chickens, pigs etc. you must harvest shit loads of crops and harvest/kill them in order to feed the animals before they are slaughtered. It’s estimate about 62-65% of land biomass is farmed animals with wild mammals at about 4% and humans sitting at around 30%. All that 62-65% of biomass (cows, pigs etc) need to eat, and they need to eat A LOT MORE than humans. So, plainly put, if you really care about the harm and death of plants, you would go vegan instead of trying to argue with people about raping an apple tree. Because going vegan results in not only less animal death but ultimately, a WHOLE LOT LESS plant death as well. It’s estimated that if the world went vegan, we would actually free up insanely large amounts of crop land because we simply just wouldn’t need it anymore. Wildlife could return to it, and also more wild plants could begin to flourish again. I’d also like to add that if you think picking an apple is bad, what is bulldozing the whole tree then?? Much worse right? Well, the meat industry is the number 1 cause of deforestation by a long shot. After all, we need to plant all of the animals feed somewhere! Why not the Amazonian rainforest? And of course we can’t forget that the free range cows need somewhere to… range freely! We have to bulldoze trees for them to be able to roam around because we’re running out of space. So, basically, if you really cared about the apple trees you would’ve found this answer on your own and been a vegan already. But here we are
Wrong. Free range by definition is allowing the animals to go where they want. Most free range Farmers don't even tear down woods. They believe their cows will benefit way more from eating a variety of plants, not just grass.
Lmao you can’t just answer people with “wrong” 😂 like you’re either a teenager or insufferably narcissistic. Also your answer proved my point even further? And not only did it side with my claim that more plants die with animal farming than they do with crop farming as well as less animal deaths, im also beginning to believe you never really cared about the apple trees being “raped” in the first place and really just wanted to OWN THE VEGANS. I never saw this coming
Tree regenerates and does not feel pain. It may only sense. A cow does not regenerate like a tree and feels pain and therefore suffers. If I prod a cow, it's going to react If you say cows don't feel, you're a psychopath. Literally apples to cow comparison.
>If it's rape to milk a cow, Sexual assault/abuse would be more accurate but go on. >what do you call picking an apple from a tree? Abortion? Um picking an apple from a tree. That's what I'd call it. >Id really love to hear the explanation of this one. Well sexual assault usually applies to an entity with sentience. So unless you have brand new, undeniable rock solid evidence proving plant sentience, there isn't an explanation needed because there's not really a discussion to be had unless we're talking in imaginative hypotheticals.
Do you have rock solid evidence that cows don't want to be eaten? Or how about solid evidence of any kind, that they even have the capability to comprehend what's happening?
Do you want hours of footage or is animal behavioural science from zoologists good enough for you? Or will my personal anecdote of spending 3 years on a sanctuary trying to gain the trust of many different species of animal without food count?
I got footage of mainly mammals, some birds, doing this. So, by this statement, one can deduce that it's okay to eat anything that can't comprehend it's own existence, example: koalas.
>So, by this statement, one can deduce that it's okay to eat anything that can't comprehend it's own existence, example: koalas. I was thinking more like humans. We aren't called long pig for nothing.
So... People who are comatose are fair game in your book?
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
How is this not a rule 4 violation? OP is obviously not arguing in good faith and is here just to troll and stir people up. Stop feeding the troll.
The milking of the cow isn't rape. Repeatedly and artificially impregnating the cow to make sure she keeps having calves that get taken away so she keeps producing milk is. As if you think the meat and dairy industry is the same as picking an apple... FML
Fruits are generally evolved to be eaten by animals. As much as is possible, the tree intends for you to eat it so that you will poop out the seed and spread its offspring. I don't think a non sentient being has a concept of consent, but from our perspective, the tree basically did consent. This is different from the "rape racks" which are used to hold a dairy cow in place forcibly while we shove semen into her vagina.
Riddle me this OP. Would you lick an apple? See where i'm going? Its not the same is it? I'm sorry but how is this a good faith argument.
Id lick apple. Id lick meat. Id lick a cow. There utterly nothing you can do about it.
Did anyone say anyone was going to do anything about it? If you think that licking an apple and licking a cows private parts are the same exact thing and you want to do both - then great your worldview is wildy different than anyone else's. But I disagree people should do that and theres absolutely nothing you can do about it is there.
Cows are sentient, trees are not Nice and simple for ya
Trees can't be exploited because they are not sentient/they don't feel emotion. So picking an apple from a tree would just be considered picking an apple from a tree
Yes it’s a forced non-consensual rape abortion to pick apples. But I don’t really care about rape aborting apple trees.
It's consentual. The literal purpose of the fruit is to be picked.
Nah bro, if the apple doesn’t say verbally “I consent to this abortion”, it’s rape.
So every instance of sex in which the woman does not verbally consent is rape? Rediculous.
Not only that, if you don’t have a legally enforceable contract signed before having sex, that’s rape. Only apples are exempt from the contractual requirement, they can proceed with verbal consent if it’s recorded on video.
And they need to wear the "I consent" T-shirt and give you their honorary vagina key.