Fine. Suppose I cut my finger. Eventually my blood will clot and the cut will stop bleeding. That is a reaction of my body to a negative physical stimulus, but it in no way implies that at some point I felt “leaky”, or that I had a desire to stop bleeding. (I presumably did have a desire to stop bleeding, but that is not implied simply because my blood clotted; in fact my blood would have clotted even if I was in a deep coma, or if I was brain-dead and being kept alive by a respirator.) The only thing implied by the clotting of my blood is that a chemical reaction took place within my bloodstream, one that’s the result of a long evolutionary process.
In the same way, the fact that a plant or a microbe reacts to a negative physical stimulus in no way implies that the plant or microbe feels pain. All it implies is that some complex set of chemical reactions took place within the organism.
The Rice University researcher has not presented any evidence that plants “experience” anything. She has presented evidence that plants react to physical stimuli, and uncovered some of the chemical nature of that reaction. That’s it. There is no, I repeat no reason to assume that that reaction is somehow motivated by or associated to feelings within the plant, any more than there’s reason to assume that blood clotting is motivated by or associated to feelings of “leakiness”.
And while I’m on the subject, I couldn’t help but notice that in that article you quoted, the phrase “chemical nervous system” is never attributed to the researcher at all. For all we know that phrase, like the title of the article, was made up by the author. (A point which I should have made clearer in my previous post.)
Well Mick Foley is known as the “hardcore legend,” for being on the receiving end of extreme violence including getting thrown off of 16 foot cages, being slammed into thumbtacks, getting whacked in the head with barbed wire, and having C4 explode on him.
Would these facts make him defaming him in terms of promoting violence kind of difficult?
Can 20/20 claim that it was just a matter of degree between the two tapes, and they went with the better reaction?
It seems to me, not being a lawyer or anything, that it would be hard to argue how this hurt Mick, since he makes money due to his in ring reputation as a violent lunatic.
What it mostly is to me, is irresponsible. Some kid looks up to Mick Foley, here’s the misattributed quote, and seriously injures himself as a result of 20/20’s misattribution of Mick’s comment.
If that happened, wouldn’t the kid’s parents have a huge case against 20/20?
In these questions, you’ve basically moved on from “What is the law?” to “What would a jury think?” The answer to the second question, of course, depends quite a lot on how good the client is on the stand and how well the lawyer presents the case.
I wouldn’t think so. Seems to me there’s a big difference between doing stupidly dangerous stuff yourself and advocating stupidly dangerous stuff for unsupervised children.
Not really. MF apparently condemned the activity in the tape they portrayed him as praising. That’s the entire crux of the defamation claim. Of course, how badly he was hurt by this defamation, if at all, is up to the jury to decide.
But now children’s groups won’t let MF volunteer for them anymore! He can’t do Make-a-Wish hospital visits! Little girls and boys think he wants to hit them over the head with fluorescent lights when he walks down the street! All this has caused mental anguish and emotional distress that can only be healed if the perpetrators of this despicable deception are made to pay many millions of dollars to the plaintiff.
(In all honesty, defamation damages rarely correspond to any “actual” injury to the plaintiff’s reputation, which is by nature incapable of being accurately valued. Juries slap defamers with damages because they’re pissed off that the media lied about the plaintiff.)
And wouldn’t that make Mick feel just awful? In fact, he worried sick just because such a thing might happen. Ladies and gentlemen, my client needs justice for this terrible wrong that ABC has done to him!
If you want a good idea, keep an eye on those suits against MTV’s Jackass. I doubt any of them will get past the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Interesting. One last question. The 20/20 report was basically a reiteration of the PTC’s stance and arguments against the WWF.
You said something ealier about not being held liable for repeating what another party said.
In that context, could that be why the WWF lawyers (and the WWF did make a big deal about the misattribution,) said that it was acceptable. I.E. they were just doing it to conform to the PTC’s stance.
(sounds thin, to me.)
I am very curious as to why, this incident being actionable, they didn’t sue.
…reducing the demand for meat reduces the number of animals subjected to horrific factory-farm rearing…
[/quote]
Factory farm you said. Factory farm rearing you said. I’m still waiting for you to give me directions to one of these “factory farms,” or at least to tell me what a “factory farm” is.
Tell me, does all this backpedalling make your legs tired? **
[/QUOTE]
Hey, spoke, does the word “animals” include the word “chickens,” which even you have conceded are treated poorly? If it does not, please explain precisely why and I will change the words “meat” and “animals” with “poultry” and “chickens” so as to to confuse your obviously overtaxed brain.
Milo, you have zero credibility with me, I’m afraid. (Not that you care.) As someone who recently started a thread asking to be told how the execution of a rebellious Jewish preacher two thousand years ago placed his soul in a certain metaphysical position, it ill behooves you to make fun of or pass judgement on anyone’s beliefs. I’ve answered all questions about my personal ethics, and stated Singer’s maxim concerning significant difference twice. If you cannot understand the maxim, I cannot help you.
As am I. But as I understand MF’s complaint, it was ABC conducting the interview with him, and editing its contents to portray him in a false and disparaging light. Those actions have nothing to do with PTC. If PTC also defamed Foley in the broadcast, he’d have to pursue a seperate claim against PTC, just as WWF is apparently doing on its own behalf.
Hey, cool, we finally managed to hijack this thread enough to derail the meat-lover’s pizza vs. vegetarian pizza slug-fest!
This is Milo’s latest post in the thread I referenced:
And you’re going to make fun of vegetarians? Super! Let’s have at it! Let’s all point out the “blatant illogic” of Milo’s theory, and talk about how it sets off our “uh-uh meters.”
You’ve got a lot of balls, Milo. Christ, at least what I believe is grounded in the concept of trying to reduce the amount of suffering to which I contribute. Star Trek, indeed–maybe somebody better beam you up.
**
“I believe that my heart will go on.” - Celine Dion
**
Sorry. Dumb old me doesn’t understand what you are trying to say. You don’t believe in Christianity? Good for you! Feel free to start a Pit thread about what idiots Christians are. You’ll get a bunch of high-fives, and maybe it will turn into a six-page war of attrition, too!
Any judgement I’ve passed on anybody’s beliefs in this thread and $2 will buy you a cup of coffee.But the lovely and talented Scylla was kind enough to present a forum in which my opinions on a particular segment of the vegetable-exclusive were not off-topic.
**
Except the ones in my last post directed to you.
**
Do you think Singer is a household name outside the PETA circle? Well, from what I’ve been able to find on the web about your buddy Singer, I guess the answer to my questions that you’re tap-dancing around is a great-big “Yes, I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m compassionate, and you’re not. And I’m going to work to abolish your wrongness in whatever little ways that I can.”
At least Scylla had tongue-at-least-partly-in-cheek humor on his side, not unfounded righteousness. And he didn’t beat around the bush you were preparing for dinner to let you know what he thought of your eating habits.
Your last paste from my Christianity thread in GD is puzzling. (Dumb ol’ me, again)
I welcome discourse and disagreement in that thread. And most everybody who’s participated has been civil and respectful. Coincidentally, you haven’t posted there.
Have I attacked someone’s faith, or anyone’s religion, in this thread? You tried to bait me into it earlier with your comments on kosher laws, but I didn’t nibble.
So vegetarianism is a religion? A matter of faith?
I’ll shut up, then.
In fact, I’ll shut up anyway. This thread could go six more pages, and you’ll still think what you think of me, and I’ll still think what I think of you.
I spit lukewarm au jus in your general direction.
Now, where were we? Oh yeah. Barbra Walters and Hugh Downs were eating sprouts and tofu when a WWF wrestler gave her a suplex and him a piledriver. And they sued and minty green argued their lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am in a similar situation. I recently moved in with my SO and he’s a meat eater. So we compromised and we always have 3-4 veggie meals a week. The rest of the time we eat meat. When we go out to dinner, of course, it’s no problem. It works for us because it shows respect for both sides.
Scylla: Yes. I apologize for misunderstanding the tone of what you were trying to say. Given your OP and the tenor of the anti-vegetarians throughout the thread, hopefully you’ll forgive me if I am a bit itchy on the trigger. Milo:
Judge not, lest ye be judged? I dunno . . . if I believed in Jesus, I’d try to keep up with what he said, you know. You, apparently, come from that sect of Christianity which sees little need for that.
I guess that counts me out, then, since I eat dairy and eggs. And I think that a reading of your posts will bear out that you not only refused to distinguish between vegans and vegetarians, you attempted to paint all vegetarians with the same brush.
Because they were patently offensive. Nowhere – NOWHERE – in this thread or any other have I EVER implied that I am more moral or more ethical than any other person on the SDMB or anywhere else. If you can find a single post in which I state or even come close to insinuating that, I’ll send you $50 via certified check. (I’m not kidding–prove me wrong.) I have repeated again and again that what I do and what I believe satisfies my personal ethics, which proceed from a lifetime of observation, experience, reading and reasoning. If my ethics differ from yours, it does not make them better. It makes them different.
Household name? No. Well-known philosopher, academic and instructor? Yes.
However, the point is academic–I stated what Singer’s maxim to which I subscribe is. I stated it explicitly, twice, and for your benefit, I’m going to do it a third time:
The differences between humans and nonhuman animals are not significant enough to justify a difference in treatment regarding the causing of unnecessary suffering.
I am not going to repeat it again. All your hand-waving about plants is just that–hand-waving. The difference between humans and plants is so obviously significant I can’t see why you are attempting to belabor the point.
Don’t out words in my mouth, bucko. See, it’s crap like this that leads me to believe that Kimstu was right on target. For whatever reason, you are feeling uncomfortable with your own morals and ethics, so you figure you’ll find an easy target and assault their ethics and morals. If you can find me saying anything even lose to your statement above in any of my posts, that $50 is yours. Come on, Milo–put up or shut up. And if you decide not to put up, I expect an apology.
:rolleyes: Right. Of course he did, because you agree with him.
And therein lies the difference. Dickheads like you and Scylla seem to have no problem with this. I’ll tell you what–I’ve had dinner over the past year or so with a couple of dozen Dopers and ex-Dopers. A short list would include Satan, Drain Bead, Melin, RTFirefly, SqrlCub, DCNewsman, Lucretia, Bluesman . . . the list goes on and on. Ask them if I have ever – EVER – made an unsolicited comment about what they were eating. Ever. You will find that the answer is unequivocally “no.” Jesus H. Christ, I took Satan and Drain Bead out to dinner and paid for it, and they had corned beef sandwiches. I had no problem paying for it because they are not vegetarians.
But you and Scylla are for some reason irrationally offended by people who don’t eat meat, and you’ll never hesitate to let them know. Why? Because you’re assholes. Just like the woman who threw a fit at Scylla’s aforementioned cookout, although I can’t help but wonder, based on his performance here, if that was just karma.
You know why? Because it’s a) rude and b) fruitless to make fun of what other people believe. I have barely posted in any religion threads since I started posting again. There’s no fucking point to it. The one’s I have posted in, I’ve come down on the side of the religious. But you, on the other hand, don’t seem to have a problem with it. You enjoy making fun of what other people believe.
Um, yes.
For some, yes. For others, no. Opal is a Wiccan. I suspect her vegetarianism may proceed partly from that. For me, no. I am an atheist. You gonna start conducting quizzes before you see who it’s OK to belittle?
Ummm. I’ve never made an anti-vegetarian comment toward any vegetarian in person. I think this is the first time I’ve ever done so on a message board.
I’m usually semi-polite and reasonable. Sometimes I’m even considerate of other people’s feelings.
It’s really not that important to me what people eat. It’s the reasons for Veganism and sometimes vegetarianism that I have problems understanding, and find somewhat silly.
There’s an important difference between arguing against vegetarianism, and telling people not to do it, and just making fun of it. I’m pretty sure I’ve been doing the latter, as I thought of it as kind of ludicrous.
In the same vein, if somebody gets their kicks by driving an iron spike through their testicle with a rubber mallet, that’s ok by me, but I do feel free to find it kind of silly, and say so. Not that driving a spike through a testicle is the same as Veganism, just a metaphor mind you.
So, I’m not sure what caused me to take my general disregard and mild contempt of Vegan philosophy and start this thing. Something a Vegan-type said in a GD thread, set me off. I started typing a reply, decided it was really it’s own pit-rant, and here I am.
I was having a stressful week, and guess I was working out my frustrations, choosing to take advantage of the anonymity of a message board and the flaky aspects of some Vegans to do so. As the week continued its stress into the weekend, I continued to work it out on this board.
When I wrote it, I didn’t think it would be taken all that seriously, but looking back at how over the top the OP was, It’s clear that was a foolish thought.
OpalCat actually had the best repsonse. “Feeling better now?”
Ummmm. Yes.
So what I’ve basically done is the SDMB equivalent of having a bad day at work, and then taking it out on the kids. Not too cool.
Look at it this way: Maybe you saved me from climbing a tower with a high-powered rifle.
I really don’t have anything against vegetarians in general. I think I was just looking for a target.
Unfortunately any humorous or therapeutic aspects of this thing are far outweighed by the general and understandable bad feelings it’s engendered.
So, that’s not meant as an excuse, but a reason.
PLD:
Thanks for the apology/retraction. I see it in no way diminished by your referring to me as an asshole and a shithead (I think it was shithead,) in the same post.
Scylla, you can’t have it both ways. If you do get in people’s faces, IRL or online, simply because of what they eat, it makes you an asshole. If you’ve had a bad week at work, that’s cool, I can sympathize. I’ve been there many times, and it often shows through in my posts. But I don’t use it as an excuse to come online and assault Christians or meat-eaters or Communists or anyone else with whom I happen to disagree. It so happens that, in working out your bad week, you took on an issue that matters to me. I got irate about it – and with, I think, good reason.
If this was an isolated incident, then you aren’t an asshole. If it wasn’t, and it’s something you do regularly, you are. So was the woman at your cookout. So would be a Jewish person who screamed at a non-Jew for eating a cheesburger.
Like I said before, I have no problem with the concept of eating meat. If I could guarantee that everything I ate was raised and killed humanely and in a manner which minimized suffering, I’d be fine. But I cannot. Therefore, I opt out. For some reason, Milo seems to find that egregiously offensive. I can’t imagine why he cares.
I have a lot more respect for people who hunt and fish on their own, and try to make sure every kill is a clean one, than for people who turn a blind eye to (for spoke’s sake) how chickens and pigs are raised, or how cows are slaughtered, pretending that it isn’t their business.
I somehow missed this before. spoke - how would you suggest that a consumer goes about “tightening the regulations”? I’m in the supermarket, concerned about what they’re feeding cows and what they’ve fed the cow’s mother. I’m trying to decide what to have for dinner. Whence this magical fourth choice now?
It’s a false option - politicians have the power to do this, but even so it takes time for regulations to filter through (especially through several generations of cattle) and even when they fix one loophole, another appears in the form of chicken shit. So Average Joe who just wants to decide what to buy for his dinner doesn’t have the luxury of waving the “tighten regulation” card. He has to make one of my three choices above.
