Further arguments revolve around the ability of animals to feel pain or suffering. Suffering implies consciousness. If animals can be shown to suffer in a way similar or identical to humans, many of the arguments against human suffering could then, presumably, be extended to animals. Others have argued that pain can be demonstrated by adverse reactions to negative stimuli that are non-purposeful or even maladaptive.[86] One such reaction is transmarginal inhibition, a phenomenon observed in humans and some animals akin to mental breakdown.

Carl Sagan, the American cosmologist, points to reasons why humans have had a tendency to deny animals can suffer:

    Humans – who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals – have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them – without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.[87]

John Webster, a professor of animal husbandry at Bristol, argues:

    People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek it, you only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's day. Just like humans.[88]

However, there is no agreement where the line should be drawn between organisms that can feel pain and those that cannot. Justin Leiber, a philosophy professor at Oxford University writes that:

    Montaigne is ecumenical in this respect, claiming consciousness for spiders and ants, and even writing of our duties to trees and plants. Singer and Clarke agree in denying consciousness to sponges. Singer locates the distinction somewhere between the shrimp and the oyster. He, with rather considerable convenience for one who is thundering hard accusations at others, slides by the case of insects and spiders and bacteria, they pace Montaigne, apparently and rather conveniently do not feel pain. The intrepid Midgley, on the other hand, seems willing to speculate about the subjective experience of tapeworms ...Nagel ... appears to draw the line at flounders and wasps, though more recently he speaks of the inner life of cockroaches.[89]

There are also some who reject the argument entirely, arguing that although suffering animals feel anguish, a suffering plant also struggles to stay alive (albeit in a less visible way). In fact, no living organism 'wants' to die for another organism's sustenance. In an article written for The New York Times, Carol Kaesuk Yoon argues that:

    When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins ... If you think about it, though, why would we expect any organism to lie down and die for our dinner? Organisms have evolved to do everything in their power to avoid being extinguished. How long would any lineage be likely to last if its members effectively didn't care if you killed them?

RedDave2 wrote:

cockbeard wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

I should be fair, I recently found out that Johnny Depp might have been innocent in relation to claims of spousal abuse. I jumped to condem him when that story first came out and didn't even think to check or wait and see.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the claims were spurious at best and a massive deflection from the actual shit going down at worst. But that said we only know our own frames of reference, so just because I was exposed to voices calling her a prick from before the accusations and divorce, I just stuck with them. Which is dangerous though, because you can be a dickhead and still be wronged

To my shame, I just believed it all and I think because I'm not the biggest fan of Depp it made it easier to believe. I think there is also an inherrant want to believe a victim for most people. I know you've had experience where this could have led to some hassle but I guess I'd find it easier to believe that a man is guilty of hitting his wife than his wife is making stuff up. And this probably correct in 99 percent of instances but there are always the exceptions.