Floran Rights

[ampersand]

I don't care for how most of you make fun of this. Plants have been victims long enough and these new rights are well over due. However they are only going to amplify the anti-plant feelings that have plagued Europe for centuries. Somewhere in Switzerland there is a gang of hoodlums lynching some zinnias in response. Shame on you. :glare:

Considering that most plants have a lifespan about half a year or so, killing them is sort of a kind of mercy killing. That's right, I'm pulling out the Kevorian logic, or illogic, if you prefer.

[adciv]

Where did he clarify this? Are you talking about this statement...

As I said, I am not saying it is on the same level as an animal, just that there is a reaction, which means there has to be some sort of system. It may be very primitive, but it does exist.

I read that as because it reacts -> it feels (on a very primitive level).[/quote]
Depends on how you define feels. If you mean an emotional reaction, then no. If you mean it is able to sense stuff in the surrounding area/environment, then yes. There are multiple species of plants that move of their own accord when touched. There is a fern (I think it's a fern) that closes up it's leaves (or whatever they are) within a few seconds of you brushing your finger down them.

[kaiju01]

I think you're backing him into a ridiculous corner there, baghead. He's clearly talking about an organism reacting to stimuli, not physical or chemical reactions.

Aren't all of our reactions to stimuli a combination of physical, chemical, and electrical responses?

Yes, but I'm not arguing the source of response but the nature of the responder itself. He's talking about a cellular organism reacting through chemical release/communication, not a water balloon gushing because you poked it with a needle or iron oxide forming on an old lock.

As I said, I am not saying it is on the same level as an animal, just that there is a reaction, which means there has to be some sort of system. It may be very primitive, but it does exist.

I read that as because it reacts -> it feels (on a very primitive level).

You're substituting feeling for system; I'm substituting nervous system for system. He may be quite questionably calling this a nervous system, but there is a system by which the organism reacts to external/internal stimuli.

And now I see that you all may be differing on the definition of "feel," and I feel I'll do nothing but complicate the matter through mediation.

[StruckingFuggle]

That's right, I'm pulling out the Kevorian logic, or illogic, if you prefer.

I don't see the link.

[Arres]

The point I was trying to make was not whether or not plants have the ability to respond to stimulus (positive, negative, or otherwise), but that they aren't capable of suffering as we define it. As I understand it cruelty isn't POSSIBLE against a thing that cannot suffer. If you were to waterboard a term thesis, you are not being cruel to the thesis. The paper isn't CAPABLE of suffering. Neither are plants, so plant cruelty isn't possible. Now, upon achieving space travel and meeting the Tree people of Glornax 5, maybe we can get a redefinition. Until then, it's silliness.

[Deacon]

Hehe, well put.

[Hirschof]

The parents and offspring of many murdered daisies will see you in hell Arres!

[JermCool]

Hear that thud, thud, thud? It's the Ents coming to take revenge.

[ampersand]

Hmm...I wonder if they have a Swiss Army Scythe? (Perfect for the Angel of Death who's always on the go.)

[cavedog]

Makes me want to buy a mower with FOUR blades and a THUMB drive.