Is it okay for vegans to eat oysters?

[dokomo]

IMO there isn't any real difference (in terms of sentience) between a rabbit and an oyster. The biggest difference comes from the fact that we can more readily identify with a rabbit than an oyster.

 

[TheDeceased]

No. There is a distinction in the world of science. Perhaps based on your experiences there doesn't appear to be one but that don't mean that there aren't any. Yo.

There is a sliding scale, like it or not. Despite how much it agrees with your choice.

 

[TheDeceased]

dokomo, to give you the benefit of the doubt, what is the distinction?

Rather than stating an unsubstantiated conclusion, why not try to contextualize it in some sound logic?

^this question applies to pretty much everyone throughout this thread.

 

[dokomo]

dokomo, to give you the benefit of the doubt, what is the distinction?

Rather than stating an unsubstantiated conclusion, why not try to contextualize it in some sound logic?

^this question applies to pretty much everyone throughout this thread.

An unsubstantiated conclusion? I really don't know what you're looking for here, to be honest. You're coming off as really defensive or standoff-ish which I don't quite understand.

I live, work, and study in "the world of science" on a daily basis. I'm not saying that there aren't massive biological differences between an oyster and a rabbit, simply pointing out that, ethically speaking, I don't think there is any difference.

Your original post talks about an oyster having only one option while a rabbit has many (in response to stimuli) but I disagree that this makes any difference. You determine that an oyster cannot feel pain, or cannot suffer, but ultimately this is just because the way a rabbit would respond to pain (various physiological markers, audible sounds, etc) is much closer to how a human does.

An oyster is much less identifiable to us in those terms, but in terms of nerve impulses and signals, there is similarity. The studies they've done with fish reflect a clear ability to feel pain, discomfort, and unhappiness. The scientific standards for distinguishing pain from nerve impulses unfortunately are still behaviorally-based, so there isn't a clear-cut answer to this question.

 

[TheDeceased]

Most of the people that get to know me conclude that I am insane from a fairly early point. I don't really have any grasp on a consistent personality. My opinions shift as casually as temperature changes. It gets confusing, but yeah maybe I need to g back on my medication. It's been a long time and I don't know.

(I will respond to your things when I am able.)

 

[L2R]

peace to you, t_d. i really do hope you find what you need, mate.

 

[TheDeceased]

Indeed Impacto.

 

[TheDeceased]

dokomo, oysters are obviously less conscious (most studies say they are not conscious at all) than a rabbit.

Consciousness enables us to experience good and bad, which is why I was talking about pain. But pleasure is just as relevant.

There obviously is a sliding scale of intelligence/sentience/consciousness in the animal kingdom. Humans are on the top of the scale, oysters are on the bottom (if not near it).

Hypothetically if there was a species above us then would you have a problem eating it?

Would there be any difference between killing this hypothetical super intelligent king of the animal kingdom that lives for four thousand years and killing an oyster or an ant?

You're arguing (against all known studies that have ever been done) that oysters are not more sentient than rabbits. But you can't seriously argue that a species that is more evolved/intelligent than humans has the same level of sentience as an oyster.

It was unsubstantiated because you just made a statement without explaining why you feel that way. I'm still not sure what has convinced you that rabbits and oysters are on par. Please provide a link to the studies you mentioned.

Science is a pretty broad field. You might be an electrical engineer for all I know. I assume that you're not an ethologist/ marine biologist?

 

[dokomo]

dokomo, oysters are obviously less conscious (most studies say they are not conscious at all) than a rabbit.

Consciousness enables us to experience good and bad, which is why I was talking about pain. But pleasure is just as relevant.

There obviously is a sliding scale of intelligence/sentience/consciousness in the animal kingdom. Humans are on the top of the scale, oysters are on the bottom (if not near it).

You need to get your terms (and what you actually mean) straight. The definition of sentience is "sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception."

Again, there are massive biological differences between humans and rabbits, and between rabbits and oysters. Do they sense the same things in the same ways? No, that is obviously not the case. What I am arguing is that, ethically speaking, this does not matter at all. They sense period. Just because this is in a different way that we do (or a more identifiable animal, like a rabbit, does) does not mean that its somehow any more OK to kill and eat an oyster versus a rabbit or any other animal.

Hypothetically if there was a species above us then would you have a problem eating it?

Would there be any difference between killing this hypothetical super intelligent king of the animal kingdom that lives for four thousand years and killing an oyster or an ant?

Nope. (I don't have a problem eating any kind of tasty animal.)

Please provide a link to the studies you mentioned.

"Fish may actually feel pain and react to it much like humans"

"The evidence for pain in fish: the use of morphine as an analgesic" - (I'm unable to provide an electronic link for this article, although anyone with journal access can look it up using the bibliographic citation here:

NSFW:

Sneddon L.U. (2003) The evidence for pain in fish: the use of morphine as an analgesic Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83(2):153-162.

"Trigeminal somatosensory innervation of the head of a teleost fish with particular reference to nociception"

Anatomical and electrophysiological analysis of the trigeminal nerve in a teleost fish, Oncorhynchus mykiss

If you're going to say that I'm incorrect based on "...all known studies that have ever been done" and then demand citations from me, you could at least cite a few articles on your own that substantiate your claim that I'm wrong. Just sayin'

Science is a pretty broad field. You might be an electrical engineer for all I know. I assume that you're not an ethologist/ marine biologist?

My field is medicine.

 

[TheDeceased]

I know what sentience means.

You misunderstood me. I never said fish can't feel pain. I know fish can feel pain. I was asking for a link to the studies regarding the oyster information. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Oysters aren't fish and they can't feel pain according to every study I have encountered, links to which are scattered throughout this thread.

Please provide a link to substantiate the comment that rabbits are on par with oysters.

From everything I've read there is a MASSIVE difference between the complexity of an oysters nervous system and the complexity of higher life forms such as mammals.

Prove me wrong.

They sense period.

Okay. So you're saying that all sentient life forms are equal because they can all feel and it doesn't matter the extent of those feelings. I still disagree, but that's not at all what you said. You said the sensory capabilities of a rabbit are on par with an oyster. Clearly they are not. In fact, as I've said, oysters are generally regarded to be non-sentient.

http://www.slate.com/id/2248998/ -

Just did some more reading. ^This is not a study. It is an article, but I thought it was well written and it mirrors most of my sentiments throughout this thread.

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/506197250/did-oysters-just-kill-veganism

^Here's another one.

Some excerpts:

Moreover, since oysters don't have a central nervous system, they're unlikely to experience pain in a way resembling ours—unlike a pig or a herring or even a lobster. They can't move, so they don't respond to injury like those animals do, either. Even monkish ethicist Peter Singer sanctioned oyster eating in Animal Liberation—the best-argued case for a vegan diet I've read—before reversing his opinion for later editions of the book. To justify the flip-flop, he wrote that "one cannot with any confidence say that these creatures do feel pain, so one can equally have little confidence in saying that they do not feel pain." This is unconvincing: We also can't state with complete confidence that plants do, or do not, feel pain—yet so far Singer hasn't made a stand against alfalfa abuse.

The main argument of Animal Liberation is that discriminating against nonhuman animals is indefensible because it makes irrelevant category distinctions—pain cuts across species barriers. But to loop oysters into a dietary taboo simply because we've labeled them animals is to make just such a faulty distinction. Likewise, we shouldn't be eating more plants because they are in the plant kingdom; we should eat them because it's a sound way to feed ourselves without causing a lot of damage to the world. And oysters, as far as we can tell, belong with plants in almost every ethically relevant way.

When I became a vegan, I didn't draw an X through everything marked "Animalia" on the tree of life.

When I talked about this article with my editor at Slate, she said, "I won't lie—you'll be attacked viciously for being a vegan, and attacked equally viciously for not being a strict enough vegan." Maybe so, but if amid a sea of vitriol a meat-eater makes a great case that some other animal deserves to be treated as I've treated the oyster, or if a vegan comes forth with a good argument for why oysters should rightfully remain off our dinner plates, then I'll have to change my mind and my diet.

 

[dokomo]

I know what sentience means.You misunderstood me. I never said fish can't feel pain. I know fish can feel pain. I was asking for a link to the studies regarding the oyster information.

I never said anything about studies involving oysters and pain, you requested information on the articles about FISH that I mentioned, which I provided.

Please provide a link to substantiate the comment that rabbits are on par with oysters.

Its painfully obvious that you possess the ability to read, so I'll ask you to go back and read what I said. Strangely enough you'll never find me saying "rabbits are on par with oysters LOLZ."

From everything I've read there is a MASSIVE difference between the complexity of an oysters nervous system and the complexity of higher life forms such as mammals.

Apparently you need to re-read what I've written, because I NEVER say otherwise. In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged that there are MASSIVE biological differences. My point is that these differences do not matter.

You said the sensory capabilities of a rabbit are on par with an oyster. Clearly they are not. In fact, as I've said, oysters are generally regarded to be non-sentient.

Again, me saying "sensory capabilities of a rabbit are on par with an oyster" is just factually not true. I have to ask at this point if you're actually hoping to foster discussion here or if you're just trolling? I've obviously (as a matter of reality and fact) not said this, and saying that I have over and over simply won't make it so.

http://www.slate.com/id/2248998/ -

Just did some more reading. ^This is not a study. It is an article, but I thought it was well written and it mirrors most of my sentiments throughout this thread.

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/506197250/did-oysters-just-kill-veganism

^Here's another one.

I can link you to some 'articles' that support that my cat is trying to kill me in my sleep and that all humanity evolved from a clam. (no really, see here and here.)

My point is, there is an obvious reason why opinion articles don't have a place in scientific discourse, so there is no point for me to even try and address them.

 

[TheDeceased]

No you didn't say studies, my bad, but you did make a couple of erroneous and unsubstantiated statements about oysters. I assume you'd gotten your information from somewhere.

Its painfully obvious that you possess the ability to read, so I'll ask you to go back and read what I said. Strangely enough you'll never find me saying "rabbits are on par with oysters LOLZ."

From everything I've read there is a MASSIVE difference between the complexity of an oysters nervous system and the complexity of higher life forms such as mammals.

Apparently you need to re-read what I've written, because I NEVER say otherwise.

Again, me saying "sensory capabilities of a rabbit are on par with an oyster" is just factually not true.

You didn't use the word par. You said there isn't any real difference between the sentience of an oyster and the sentience of a rabbit. Maybe you didn't mean to say it, but that is what you said. Here it is:

IMO there isn't any real difference (in terms of sentience) between a rabbit and an oyster.

The statement is wrong. Clearly you didn't mean what you said, though. So fair enough.

My point is, there is an obvious reason why opinion articles don't have a place in scientific discourse, so there is no point for me to even try and address them.

This isn't a scientific discourse. This thread is largely occupied by opinions (largely philosophical/ ethical based) with references to scientific studies, which is what those published articles are too. If you don't want to read them, that's perfectly fine. But to dismiss them as irrelevant don't make much sense to me.

 

[dokomo]

^I again defer to the definition of sentience--"sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling," "elementary or undifferentiated consciousness" or even "having animal life as distinguished from plant life."

In these terms there is no difference between rabbits and clams--both are sentient by the definition of the term. You keep referring to degrees of complexity and feeling as sentience, which is a misnomer.

This isn't a scientific discourse. This thread is largely occupied by opinions (largely philosophical/ ethical based) with references to scientific studies, which is what those published articles are too. If you don't want to read them, that's perfectly fine. But to dismiss them as irrelevant don't make much sense to me.

You say on the one hand that I need to substantiate my statements with facts (in other words, that my opinion doesn't matter) but now you're saying this isn't scientifically-based discourse but rather opinion

I read those articles, but some random bloke's opinion who's writing an article for a paycheck isn't really relevant in any way other than to establish the fact that someone has an opinion on this matter. Hardly the big picture, wouldn't you say?

 

[TheDeceased]

It is a combination. It is not solely a scientific discourse.

Those articles are not the basis of my argument.

The statement: "there is no real difference (in terms of sentience) between oysters and rabbits" is wrong. I'm not sure why you're again defining sentience. The studies I was requesting were the ones that indicated undoubted sentience in oysters and other invertebrates because all of the studies I have read have either been undecided or concluded that these animals are not sentient. The vast majority of them seem to lean towards oysters having either an extremely limited ability to feel or no ability to feel. Rabbits on the other hand can feel. There is no question of that. So there is a considerably difference between rabbits and oysters in terms of sentience.

Here is a book. Moral Status: obligations to persons and other living things.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...e&q=study on the sentience of oysters&f=false

Pages 60 onwards, chapter titled ''The Distribution of Sentience Among Terrestrial Organisms". Oysters are mentioned about halfway through the chapter as an example of a sedentary species that does not require intelligence. It's almost exactly what I was saying in the original post about evolution and necessity. The following chapter is also interesting. The book was written by a professor of philosophy and was published by Oxford press in 1997. Hopefully that isn't just somebody writing something for a paycheck.

If that's not enough, scroll back through this thread and go through the other links. Or check this out: (I wasn't aware of this.)

http://ciwf.org.uk/animal_sentience/policy_and_culture/default.aspx

There is an actual sliding scale recognized by animal rights activists and governments. Animals are ranked based on sentience.

Many societies now accept animal sentience implicitly or explicitly in their legal systems. Many of the laws and regulations for the protection of animals (apart from those concerned merely with conservation of species) clearly assume that at least all vertebrate animals (mammals, birds, fish, etc.) can experience suffering from a variety of causes, for example from pain, discomfort and hunger, as well as fear, anxiety and frustration.

In 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union. The legally-binding Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognises that animals are ‘sentient beings’, and requires the EU and its Member States to ‘pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.’

The laws of several states include certain invertebrates such as cephalopods (octopuses, squids) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters, crabs) in the scope of animal protection laws, implying that these animals are also judged to be capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

 

[TheDeceased]

now you're saying this isn't scientifically-based discourse but rather opinion

If you'd like to have a scientific discourse you'll have to provide some sort of basis for the idea that oysters are similarly sentient to rabbits. I realize it was a little unclear when I asked for ''studies'' because you didn't use the word study and I didn't specify that I was talking about oysters. I thought it was implied. Sorry for wasting your time looking for fish info. If you provide a link to an article or a study that provides a convincing argument that oysters are undeniably sentient beings I will read it with an open mind. But honestly I think it's going to be difficult to find one. I've both been reading stuff from the library and online and I haven't come across a single one.

 

[alanwatts]

Short answer- Sure its OK- but you're not a VEGAN. That violates rule #1. Don't eat Animals!
I've never eaten on oyster. It's not a common food. I'm trying to cut down on animal protein, honest I am. But I'm not there yet! I can't tell you how much I enjoyed the Brown Rice I had last night. That and the jalapenos were the bomb!! I'm getting hungry again. I'm just human. Somebody Stop Me!!!!!!!!!

 

[dokomo]

I'm going to stop feeding the troll now.

Short answer- Sure its OK- but you're not a VEGAN. That violates rule #1. Don't eat Animals!
I've never eaten on oyster. It's not a common food. I'm trying to cut down on animal protein, honest I am. But I'm not there yet! I can't tell you how much I enjoyed the Brown Rice I had last night. That and the jalapenos were the bomb!! I'm getting hungry again. I'm just human. Somebody Stop Me!!!!!!!!!

Brown rice is delicious!! IMO so is animal protein. All things in moderation and good measure.

 

[TheDeceased]

Engage in a discussion with someone then when you hit a wall, and you have nothing to come back with, bail and call them a troll. What you said was inherently wrong. You made an unsubstantiated comment, failed to back it up, yet continued to argue.

I guess that makes me a troll.

If you provide a link to an article or a study that provides a convincing argument that oysters are undeniably sentient beings I will read it with an open mind. But honestly I think it's going to be difficult to find one. I've both been reading stuff from the library and online and I haven't come across a single one.

As I said, you have nothing.

 

[delta_9]

*Sign*

I guess it's time for some tough love(and truthfully a bit of sarcasm)

T_D, you're right about EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING that's ever happened and will happen. Your veiws and beliefs regarding plants and animals rights(or not rights) are GOD and every country should follow soon. I see the light now.

I will personannly go outside and immediately after typing this (and get as many as I can with me)and pay homage to mother Earth and the tress and all of the beautiful natural around me.

Tomorrow, we will destroy(psysically dismantle by hand if I must), EVERY single meat processing plant, butcher shop, meat market, cattle/goat/pig/etc farm in our own country. Let these animals runs free oh praise Him!

And with you T_D, our righteous, moral, exalted, virtuous, honorable, and down right holy leader and god-head, we will prevail. Halelujah it will be a glorious day indeed.

I very much hope to speak with you, the Holy One, soon via PM so we might discuss when and where to meet up and get started the revulotion that is oh so late.

Fear not brother and sisters, our animal and plant brethern will soon join is in the enternal. Just as his Holiness The_Deceases has decreeed.

 

[TheDeceased]

Couldn't be bothered reading your personal off topic nonsense.