Comment by latexr

Comment by latexr 2 days ago

Mushrooms are “fruits”. The “plant” itself is the mycelium underground and the mushroom is the “fruity” part which is produced to spread the “seeds” (spores).

And fruits are broader than most people think. Many of the things you think as vegetables are fruits: pumpkins, zucchinis, tomatoes. But even outside fruits there is food you can harvest without harming the plant, like potatoes. And we haven’t even gotten into seeds and grains, like rice.

So you can definitely live without killing what you eat.

ThePowerOfFuet 2 days ago

> Mushrooms are “fruits”. The “plant” itself is the mycelium underground and the mushroom is the “fruity” part which is produced to spread the “seeds” (spores).

They are the "fruiting body" of the fungus, but biologically they are not fruit.

Reply View 1 reply

latexr 2 days ago

That is correct, which is why I used quotes. It is important to not get bogged down in pedantry and lose sight of the argument, though. The matter being discussed is if you need to kill what you eat, and I’m using “fruit” as a shorthand for the thing a plant produces to be eaten but is not the plant itself.

Reply View | 0 replies

wrigby 2 days ago

Hah of course you're 100% right on mushrooms - that totally slipped my mind. Am I completely out to lunch on root vegetables though?

Reply View 0 replies

fragmede 2 days ago

aren't plants alive?

Reply View 16 replies

latexr 2 days ago

They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. If you want to engage in the conversation, please make an effort to do so in good faith and actually address the arguments. If you’re only going to make basic queries everyone already agrees with, we’re just wasting time and space.

Reply View | 15 replies
- y-curious 2 days ago
  
  "Aren't plants alive?" is such a bad faith argument that I don't know why you even bother replying. It's legitimately on the level of "internet troll". I eat meat btw, but I wouldn't even entertain someone that pretends there's no difference between a sentient mammal and a stalk of broccoli
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  latexr 2 days ago
  
  You are right, of course. But I have noticed as of late that I sometimes became unkind in my replies, which I don’t like and didn’t use to happen. I want to do better.
  Surely the right move here is not to play, but if you don’t get annoyed trolls can’t win either.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  burnished 2 days ago
  
  The point is that you're still killing that broccoli, not that the two acts have equal moral value. It doesn't normally need to be said but you know, someone was wrong on the internet
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- phito 2 days ago
  
  Ever ate a carrot? The whole plant has to be "killed". Killing doesn't even make sense in the context of plants, a lot of them can just be cloned from a leaf, stem or root. Where do you draw the line between damaging and killing a plant, the termination of the apical meristem? The plant will stop growing but it can still clone itself, or grow more apical meristems...
  This whole argument is absolutely meaningless.
  edit: just pointing out I'm not directly replying to you but to the whole thread.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- fragmede 2 days ago
  
  > purpose of being eaten and spread
  why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
  You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.
  
  Reply View | 9 replies
  
  0x457 2 days ago
  
  > why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
  Pretty sure it is the cow's purpose. Humans first domesticated a wild animal and then with selective breeding cows were "made". That has no weight on ethics tho.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  addicted 2 days ago
  
  Also, this is a ridiculous argument.
  If someone raises their human kid “to be eaten”, that would be the purpose of the kid.
  Does that make it ok to eat the kid?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  addicted 2 days ago
  
  Here’s a compromise.
  Neither you nor I get to decide what the purpose of another sentient being is.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  svieira 2 days ago
  
  Absolutely. But while I cannot declare its ultimate "final cause", perhaps I have some right to declare a penultimate one? I have my reasons for believing this is the case. What are your reasons for believing it is not (or do you believe that we do have some right to declare penultimate final causes for living creatures, and if so, what are the limits?)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  latexr 2 days ago
  
  > why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?
  Clearly you’ve never experienced the sight of animals in a slaughterhouse, as they realise what is happening to the animals in front and begin to panic and violently bellow and push back.
  > You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.
  That is only true for people who don’t engage in good faith and don’t have a genuine desire to learn and are open to changing their minds. For everyone else, it can and does provide value.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
- [removed] 2 days ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies