Talk:Plant rights/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 July 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

"Studies"

The four "studies" listed in Central Arguments are not studies. The first one (Michigan State Uni) is a joke article. It may have once been an actual study, but a link to the published study is required if there ever was one. The second one (Helvetica Institute) is attributed to a person that doesn't seem to exist, and is not a study but rather a one liner from a maybe-existant person from an organization that doesn't seem to exist. Baylor medical center has never published a study about plants feeling pain and the link goes to a music sales website. The last one - Malcolm Wilkins - "said" some things, but has no study listed to back it up. The link is to a scanned article that suggests that Wilkins had a theory...

"Fun"

I am surprised to see this page is labeled as "fun". The article is not a parody article, Plant Liberation Front is a real organization. You may have confusion because it is a less heard concept than animal rights, but still it does exist and form a social movement. If you don't like the concept, you are free to criticize it, but the word "Fun" at the beginning of the title is not funny. --PLF (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's loony and therefore is Fun. If, as would seem, they take themselves seriously then they're also loony and therefore fun. This is a personal opinion and not necessarily that of RationalWiki. 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So what are your saying? A full coverage in the Weekly Standard is not enough? A government declaring plant rights is not enough? Right now it is a fringe concept (in the sense it is held by a minority people), but tomorrow it may grow larger, but dismissing it as fun will only weaken your counter-argumentation. --PLF (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I couldn't give a damn. if loonies want to be in our mainspace then they can be, but it's so ludicrous that it simply has to be a wind up. Publicity does not a product make. 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

However crackpot it may sound, when a government has declared plants have rights [1], then this concept should be taken seriously. If you want to criticize it, criticize it seriously and provide valid and logical counter-arguments. --PLF (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by has a bit of a point... maybe reconvert it to mainspace and add the batshit insane template? Blue (pester) 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

this concept should be taken seriously Blue (pester) 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

<Pedantry Corner> A site that has a mis-spelling in the second para on it's front page loses any credibility. 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, just for the sake of your knowledge, Wikipedia recently added an article about Plant rights. So you guys decide. --PLF (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with PLF. A lot of woo is weird to the point of being laughable - but we don't put it in fun for that reason. We could always add a note saying that it could be a Poe.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This article seems like a joke to me, if this is going to be a mainspace article it needs to be more critical. Much, much more critical.. --Onion^talk/edits 21:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a Poe. And yes, it does. Blue (pester) 21:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Parts are parody. But the subject itself is not. Blue (pester) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok nice, I will try to add some information. It will be your job guys to add criticism. --PLF (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually we are more likely to add to the article. But thanks for telling us our job. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ho Ho! Just found out that the Discovery Institute was behind the Weekly Standard article! The plot thickens. I've added it to the intro.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)