Can vegans eat fungi?

[Rudkobing]

Well they shouldn't eat anything since its all alive, true believers only eat fruit dropped from trees at the natural time, aka Fruitarian

otherwise you're a dirty murderer

Yep. Plants don't have faces, but they feel, and they are ALIVE.

[Deleted]

First, let me say you were right about my attitude. I was unnecessarily an asshole to you and I apologize. I have no good excuse or reason, I was in the wrong. Again, I'm legitimately sorry.

However, there is nothing in my stance that is arbitrary. I explained early on in the thread that harm is suffering and to suffer one has to feel pain. There is no plausible evidence to suggest plants suffer or feel pain...as you agreed. Basically, you're using a different definition of harm than I am, but in my defense I did, in fact, set the definition I was using awhile ago in the thread.

I also said earlier in the thread that if information (or evolution) ever came to light that showed plants feel pain, then at that time things will need to be re-evaluated.

So that's not arbitrary.

What is worrisome to me, however, is that since you're not basing "harm" on pain and suffering, then how can you compare the harm caused to an animal to be slaughtered to a plant to be picked, in whatever other way you define harm?

First of all, that's big of you and of course I accept the apology and sorry if I came off a bit too strong as well.

On the subject matter I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Your point on pain is fair enough but while all pain is harm/suffering not all harm or suffering equals pain (being a signal along a central nervous system to the brain). There's psychological suffering, there is empathy for others in pain, there is loss, etc. just to name a few ways of suffering that animals and humans can experience without experiencing physical pain. Suffering doesn't necessarily require pain.

Harm in my opinion doesn't even necessarily require suffering. Humans have harmed whole ecosystems by their ways of exploiting nature and even though that might not induce suffering to any specific organism it is harm on a huge scale.

I do think that this goes along with the generally accepted definitions of the terms suffering and harm but that might also be a language problem on my side.

[willtron]

Whats the deal with Vegans and figs? Can they eat figs?

[Bodakane]

First of all, that's big of you and of course I accept the apology and sorry if I came off a bit too strong as well.

You didn't do anything wrong, it was all me.

On the subject matter I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Your point on pain is fair enough but while all pain is harm/suffering not all harm or suffering equals pain (being a signal along a central nervous system to the brain). There's psychological suffering, there is empathy for others in pain, there is loss, etc. just to name a few ways of suffering that animals and humans can experience without experiencing physical pain. Suffering doesn't necessarily require pain.

Harm in my opinion doesn't even necessarily require suffering. Humans have harmed whole ecosystems by their ways of exploiting nature and even though that might not induce suffering to any specific organism it is harm on a huge scale.

I do think that this goes along with the generally accepted definitions of the terms suffering and harm but that might also be a language problem on my side.

It may be a language issue.

When I have spoken about harm in this thread, I am speaking to ONLY the kind that is caused by pain/suffering (which includes psychological btw). A plant cannot feel pain, suffering, or psychological pain or suffering. That is why there's nothing arbitrary about my stance.

There is ecological harm involved in the raising of crops. However, a lot of the crops go to feeding livestock. Then on top of that, the actual raising of livestock causes, even more, ecological harm. 45% of the land is used for raising livestock. The meat and dairy industry use 1/3 of the Earth's fresh water. Eating vegan decreases your carbon footprint by 50%. There's a lot more.

We can feed everyone on the planet a vegan diet, using the same amount of land used to grow food and graze livestock.

So, ecologically speaking:

X = ecological harm generated by producing crops
Y = extra ecological harm generated by producing livestock

Meat eating world = X + Y

Or

Vegan world = just X

Which is worse?

[Deleted]

It may be a language issue.

When I have spoken about harm in this thread, I am speaking to ONLY the kind that is caused by pain/suffering (which includes psychological btw). A plant cannot feel pain, suffering, or psychological pain or suffering. That is why there's nothing arbitrary about my stance.

There is ecological harm involved in the raising of crops. However, a lot of the crops go to feeding livestock. Then on top of that, the actual raising of livestock causes, even more, ecological harm. 45% of the land is used for raising livestock. The meat and dairy industry use 1/3 of the Earth's fresh water. Eating vegan decreases your carbon footprint by 50%. There's a lot more.

We can feed everyone on the planet a vegan diet, using the same amount of land used to grow food and graze livestock.

So, ecologically speaking:

X = ecological harm generated by producing crops
Y = extra ecological harm generated by producing livestock

Meat eating world = X + Y

Or

Vegan world = just X

Which is worse?

I see the point in your math but you reduce the issue to a binary one when my point was considering three different terms: pain, suffering and harm.

I know you don't agree with this assessment, so this is just to put it out very clearly what I was talking about:

Pain = a signal for injury, travelling through a central nervous system to a brain, where the signal is processed
Suffering = any form of "discomfort" or the experience of negative change in situation as it concerns an individual organism, this is hard to define because we lack the words to describe forms of suffering we can't experience ourselves
Harm = any injury or offense that is done to a living organism or a group/system of organisms or even inanimate objects (since it is basically a technical term - this doesn't mean I am concerned with harm dealt to cars, etc. like I am with harm dealt to living beings, this is just a definition, not an evaluation)

Going with this definition all pain is suffering and all suffering is harm but not all harm is suffering and not all suffering is pain. Am I making sense so far?

Now, humans feel pain, animals feel pain, plants cannot experience pain, agreed.
I believe that any living being is able to suffer though and I find it a bit arrogant to suppose that pain and other forms of suffering that humans are capable of are the only forms of suffering valid for consideration when thinking about how much harm we cause.

[Bodakane]

I see the point in your math but you reduce the issue to a binary one when my point was considering three different terms: pain, suffering and harm.

I know you don't agree with this assessment, so this is just to put it out very clearly what I was talking about:

Pain = a signal for injury, travelling through a central nervous system to a brain, where the signal is processed
Suffering = any form of "discomfort" or the experience of negative change in situation as it concerns an individual organism, this is hard to define because we lack the words to describe forms of suffering we can't experience ourselves
Harm = any injury or offense that is done to a living organism or a group/system of organisms or even inanimate objects (since it is basically a technical term - this doesn't mean I am concerned with harm dealt to cars, etc. like I am with harm dealt to living beings, this is just a definition, not an evaluation)

Going with this definition all pain is suffering and all suffering is harm but not all harm is suffering and not all suffering is pain. Am I making sense so far?

Now, humans feel pain, animals feel pain, plants cannot experience pain, agreed.
I believe that any living being is able to suffer though and I find it a bit arrogant to suppose that pain and other forms of suffering that humans are capable of are the only forms of suffering valid for consideration when thinking about how much harm we cause.

I understand your stance on harm. I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying about harm.

Harm can include numerous different things. For this conversation, I relegated harm to be only of the pain and suffering variety (physical and emotional). Because I made that clear early on, I'm not being arbitrary when I say no "harm" (as I've defined it in this discussion) is coming to plants.

I do not, on any significant level see physical harm done to plants as the same or comparable to physical (and/or emotional) harm done to animals. Harm, in the broadest sense of the word, is technically being done to both, but plants are not suffering or feeling pain. It's not equal or even very relevant.

[Pony Soldier]

This has to be to most random and weirdest topic I seen on here. Can vegans eat fungi...lol wtf?! And it has 13 pages of discussion.

No they are not allowed to eat fungi because on page 479 article 3 it says "no fungi allowed".

[Deleted]

I understand your stance on harm. I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying about harm.

Harm can include numerous different things. For this conversation, I relegated harm to be only of the pain and suffering variety (physical and emotional). Because I made that clear early on, I'm not being arbitrary when I say no "harm" (as I've defined it in this discussion) is coming to plants.

I do not, on any significant level see physical harm done to plants as the same or comparable to physical (and/or emotional) harm done to animals. Harm, in the broadest sense of the word, is technically being done to both, but plants are not suffering or feeling pain. It's not equal or even very relevant.

It's good that I could at least make myself understood. I do understand your stance on harm and also the limited focus you are giving it for the purpose of this discussion. I simply apply a broader focus to it (which is, imo, valid, especially since you were not the original author of the discussion, so I'm not derailing from what you wanted to talk about).

I agree with your points on pain, I don't agree on suffering. I believe that living beings suffer when they are harmed, even if they are unable to feel physical or emotional pain the same way humans and animals do.

You are right though, that, going with the focus of your discussion and the definition of the word "harm" you were arguing about, you weren't arbitrary but you are limiting the word "harm" to a more narrow focus than I think the generally accepted definition of the word does. Basically you were doing the same thing you, rightfully, called others (me included) out on when it came to the definition of pain, simply in the opposite direction.

Now, as I said, it's your choice to only consider pain and suffering in the forms experienced by humans and animals as harm; I just don't agree with it but that shouldn't stop you from making that choice, if that's your conviction.

EDIT:

This has to be to most random and weirdest topic I seen on here.

You don't read much on here, do you? :P

[Bodakane]

It's good that I could at least make myself understood. I do understand your stance on harm and also the limited focus you are giving it for the purpose of this discussion. I simply apply a broader focus to it (which is, imo, valid, especially since you were not the original author of the discussion, so I'm not derailing from what you wanted to talk about).

I agree with your points on pain, I don't agree on suffering. I believe that living beings suffer when they are harmed, even if they are unable to feel physical or emotional pain the same way humans and animals do.

You are right though, that, going with the focus of your discussion and the definition of the word "harm" you were arguing about, you weren't arbitrary but you are limiting the word "harm" to a more narrow focus than I think the generally accepted definition of the word does. Basically you were doing the same thing you, rightfully, called others (me included) out on when it came to the definition of pain, simply in the opposite direction.

Now, as I said, it's your choice to only consider pain and suffering in the forms experienced by humans and animals as harm; I just don't agree with it but that shouldn't stop you from making that choice, if that's your conviction.

What are you basing the "suffering" of plants on then? And also, how is that equal to the suffering of animals?