What's wrong with eating meat?

[hilariousandco]

I didn't read partial your reply I decided to reply on that part because it's the only part that sounded like an argument in your comment
As for for Atheism + Vegetarian having higher IQ, that's the most stupid thing i've ever heard, I'll let you check some facts here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=511208.msg6285147#msg6285147
Have a good read.

What's that list of? Karl Sagan & Hawkings aren't religious or am I confused here?

Here we go again, didn't you see the huge striketrough on Hawkings, how about the other dozen of profilant scientist mentioned there ?

Yeah I saw it but why is he still there? What about Sagan? And some of the others are religious but I don't know about all of them.

You quoted me pretty quickly ^^, check out my reply I think, you can check them out, they all are religious with a clear stance, except, Sagan who doesn't follow a religion per say, but he doesn't denies God and he clearly said I quote :"Atheism is stupid" As for Einstein he is a Jew who believes in Spinoza God... there points were discussed in that topic.

Jesus Christ how many excuses can you make for including them on the list? So not denying god makes them religious? You can put Richard Dawkins on the list with your logic. You need to read up on Spinoza's god. It's not what you think. You continually show a misunderstanding of this. Read what Sagan and Einstein said about Spinoza's god.

No How about you answer my last comment on that thread so we can stop this off topic right here. Dawkins is the most Atheist of modern scientist there is and has nothing to do with that list (see when someone is Atheist and clear about it, I said clearly, unlike you) and even if we disregard Sagan and Einstein what do you do about the rest of the list? so what's your next excuse here? go ahead and show us

I'm replying to it now but what good is it because you don't deal with facts? Why do you keep going on about the rest of the list? I'm not arguing about that and it has nothing to do with my point. You just keep going back to it to distract and backtrack from your initial mistakes. My point is and always has been that you've included people who are not religious and don't believe in god on a list of people who you claim do. So is it a list of religious people or people who aren't but never officially confirmed or denied? Einstein and Sagan have nothing to do with the list but you've put them on there. You could quote Dawkins out of context and say he's agnostic so he belongs on the list too because he's not ultimately denying that there might be a god.

[CoinGeneral]

I don't see anything wrong with eating meat. Nothing wrong with not eating meat. We are all different. Why all the hate?

I don't think it's that you don't 'see anything wrong with eating meat' rather you never thought about it critically enough.

Have you thought about why it is wrong to eat meat? Or do you just think it's not wrong to eat meat because you were raised and taught that way by culture?

There are 6 pages worth of posts here, you might find some insight in one of them.

[yayayo]

It's not healthy to only eat vegan food without monitoring and supplementing vitamin B12. A nutritional vitamin B12 deficit can go unnoticed for years - when it is noticed damage has already been done. Humans are omnivores that need animal food sources from time to time (although it does not have to be meat).

Also I don't understand vegan ideology. Why should it be any more acceptable to slaughter plants than animals? Just because animals are more similar to humans than plants and evoke feelings of pity that plants do not? Plants are also living creatures! Assuming that slaughtering plants is acceptable while slaughtering animals is not is therefore a prime example of ideology-based Darwinism.

ya.ya.yo!

[lynn_402]

It's not healthy to only eat vegan food without monitoring and supplementing vitamin B12. A nutritional vitamin B12 deficit can go unnoticed for years - when it is noticed damage has already been done. Humans are omnivores that need animal food sources from time to time (although it does not have to be meat).

Also I don't understand vegan ideology. Why should it be any more acceptable to slaughter plants than animals? Just because animals are more similar to humans than plants and evoke feelings of pity that plants do not? Plants are also living creatures! Assuming that slaughtering plants is acceptable while slaughtering animals is not is therefore a prime example of ideology-based Darwinism.

ya.ya.yo!

The statement about B12 is inexact. All of the B12 in nature is created by micro-organisms, and one does not need to eat meat for that - although I'll admit that all research around that vitamin is quite hazy since it's a difficult field of study. There's evidence, although not 100% sure, that you can get enough of it by eating fermented foods like sauerkraut and vegan yogourt, and it might even be found in the algae used in sushis. There's also theories that affirm that anyone with a healthy gut has enough good micro-organisms inside of him to produce his daily required amount of B12 on his own. I do agree with you that its important to make sure we have enough of it by being aware of the early symptoms of deffiency (mostly, being often tired).

Besides, most B12 that is found in meat is artificially added to the animals through supplements fed to them, since they do not produce enough on their own when fed with the inadequate food typical of factory farming. So being a vegan that gets artificial B12 through soy milk or whatever is not different.


It is more acceptable to "slaughter" plant, since they don't feel pain.

[kuroman]

I'm replying to it now but what good is it because you don't deal with facts? Why do you keep going on about the rest of the list? I'm not arguing about that and it has nothing to do with my point. You just keep going back to it to distract and backtrack from your initial mistakes. My point is and always has been that you've included people who are not religious and don't believe in god on a list of people who you claim do. So is it a list of religious people or people who aren't but never officially confirmed or denied? Einstein and Sagan have nothing to do with the list but you've put them on there. You could quote Dawkins out of context and say he's agnostic so he belongs on the list too because he's not ultimately denying that there might be a god.

It has nothing to do with the point? the point was and I clearly repeat my self, "only stupid people believes in religion and that Atheist people has high IQ" and on this thread, "that Atheism + Veg people have higher IQ than Christian + Carni".
Fact one : I presented a list of some of the most proficient scientist and most intelligent people earth even seen that are religious and Fact two : more than half of the current scientist are religious. The list has everything to do with the argument, maybe you need to check your facts here. no backtracking just dismantling that argument you are having by trying to nitpick on one or two persons and ignore the rest of the list.

[hilariousandco]

I'm replying to it now but what good is it because you don't deal with facts? Why do you keep going on about the rest of the list? I'm not arguing about that and it has nothing to do with my point. You just keep going back to it to distract and backtrack from your initial mistakes. My point is and always has been that you've included people who are not religious and don't believe in god on a list of people who you claim do. So is it a list of religious people or people who aren't but never officially confirmed or denied? Einstein and Sagan have nothing to do with the list but you've put them on there. You could quote Dawkins out of context and say he's agnostic so he belongs on the list too because he's not ultimately denying that there might be a god.

It has nothing to do with the point? the point was and I clearly repeat my self, "only stupid people believes in religion and that Atheist people has high IQ" and on this thread, "that Atheism + Veg people have higher IQ than Christian + Carni".
Fact one the List presented a list of some of the most proficient scientist and most intelligent people earth even seen that are religious and Fact two more than half of the current scientist are religious. The list has everything to do with the argument, maybe you need to check your facts here. no backtracking just dismantling that argument you are having by trying to nitpick on one or two person and ignore the rest of the list.

How many times do I need to tell you?  Are you really this moronic or just trolling? My point was you put three non-religious people on a list of religious people, but you quite clearly do not have the mental capacity or intelligence to process this or are just infinitely in denial. It's not a 'fact one' because the three I mentioned are not in any way shape or form religious or believe in god. I can give you a list of prominent atheist scientists but what would that have to do with anything? What would that be proof of in itself? Would it be a fact If I added three Christian scientists to my list of atheist ones? If I was claiming Newton was an atheist that would be incorrect and fud. And "fact two"? Give me the sources that over 50% of the current prominent scientists are religious. Where's this figure come from? But not that it matters or has to do with my argument. If 50% are religious then 50% aren't. I am not nitpicking about anything. My initial argument was there's three people on the list who are not religious. Nothing more. What facts do I need to check? My facts are fine. It's yours that you need to check.

[yayayo]

It is more acceptable to "slaughter" plant, since they don't feel pain.

No, it's not! Pain is an entirely human concept. Just because plants do not suffer in comparable ways like humans and animals doesn't justify that killing them is acceptable. In fact, plants clearly react to environmental stress. Some plants are also able to warn other plants of the same species when hurt by herbivores so they can release chemical deterrents.

From my point of view the statement "what does not suffer can be killed" is morally much less defensible than the statement "to live I sometimes have to kill".

ya.ya.yo!

[CoinGeneral]

Also I don't understand vegan ideology. Why should it be any more acceptable to slaughter plants than animals? Just because animals are more similar to humans than plants and evoke feelings of pity that plants do not? Plants are also living creatures! Assuming that slaughtering plants is acceptable while slaughtering animals is not is therefore a prime example of ideology-based Darwinism.

It is more acceptable to "slaughter" plant, since they don't feel pain.

No, it's not! Pain is an entirely human concept. Just because plants do not suffer in comparable ways like humans and animals doesn't justify that killing them is acceptable. In fact, plants clearly react to environmental stress. Some plants are also able to warn other plants of the same species when hurt by herbivores so they can release chemical deterrents.

From my point of view the statement "what does not suffer can be killed" is morally much less defensible than the statement "to live I sometimes have to kill".

Already been addressed in page 2. Even if plants do release chemicals, it's most likely not the same sensation we would describe as being painful. For example just because our arms are alive doesn't mean it can think on its own or feel pain on its own, it needs a central nervous system to process that information which plants do not have.

I find it funny when some (rare) vegetarians argues that eating meat is animal cruelty, but what's the difference between an animal and a plant? aren't they both living beings? for me if it is for the sake of eating then it is justified, nature was created in such a way that there are ecosystems and as such there are cycles on where things feed on other things, and the same goes for us human, when we die worms and plants feed on us and the cycle continues.

Now killing animals for fun that's another story and shouldn't be allowed.

Ah, excellent question and a very common misconception, even one that I used to have to justify my cause for eating meat.

"Isn't eating plants the same thing as eating meat?"
"Isn't it cruel to eat plants?"
"Aren't they both living things that feel pain and are hurt by us when we eat them?"



Well let's take a look:

• Most fruits and vegetable plants evolved to be eaten such as apples or oranges, animals eat part of the fruit then spit the seeds on the ground.
• Plants feel no pain, they have no consciousness, they have no nervous system, they don't feel emotion.
• Let's say they did feel pain, it would then be wrong to eat an animal that ate a lot more plants in its entire life as 80% of all agricultural plants are used to raise animals to be eaten.

I think this one is the strongest argument of all but it makes the most sense when combined with the others:

• You don't even kill most plants by eating the vegetable or fruits they produce. If you eat an apple, kale leaf, broccoli, orange, tomato, potato, or most other fruits and vegetables, you only eat a part of the whole, the main plant is still alive and continues to grow and produce more for you next harvest.

In conclusion...

It's not healthy to only eat vegan food without monitoring and supplementing vitamin B12. A nutritional vitamin B12 deficit can go unnoticed for years - when it is noticed damage has already been done. Humans are omnivores that need animal food sources from time to time (although it does not have to be meat).

This issue has been addressed as well. It is definitely recommended that all vegans take a supplement that has Vitamin B12 included. No one is saying otherwise. It's common knowledge amongst Vegans and Vegetarians.

4) Make sure you take a multivitamin everyday. Also add ground flaxseed to your diet.
This part is important. Most researches say multivitamins do nothing, while that might be true, I like to take comfort in the fact that multivitamins provide Vitamin B12, which is a nutrient you will need that you will not find in plants. It will just make you feel more energized if you decide to take one everyday.

Also the largest animals in the world are vegetarian including Elephants and Giraffes. So the myth that you need meat to become huge... Is a lie!

[CoinDiver]

Am I the only one craving veal after reading this thread?
MMMMmmmmm....

[kuroman]

How many times do I need to tell you?  Are you really this moronic or just trolling? My point was you put three non-religious people on a list of religious people, but you quite clearly do not have the mental capacity or intelligence to process this or are just infinitely in denial. It's not a 'fact one' because the three I mentioned are not in any way shape or form religious or believe in god. I can give you a list of prominent atheist scientists but what would that have to do with anything? What would that be proof of in itself? Would it be a fact If I added three Christian scientists to my list of atheist ones? If I was claiming Newton was an atheist that would be incorrect and fud. And "fact two"? Give me the sources that over 50% of the current prominent scientists are religious. Where's this figure come from? But not that it matters or has to do with my argument. If 50% are religious then 50% aren't. I am not nitpicking about anything. My initial argument was there's three people on the list who are not religious. Nothing more. What facts do I need to check? My facts are fine. It's yours that you need to check.

Neither, and the moronic one here is obviously the one insulting others with no reason and being really off Topic, if you have anything to say reply to me on the topic we were discussing that on instead of polluting yet another topic, can't you even do that much? and you dare to call me moronic with no mental capacity and intelligence? seriously ?
And wait so you are saying that religion has nothing to do with intelligence right ? and your whole argument is about 3 people on the list not being religious? and the rest are fine, right? so my argument on religion was correct then, thank you.

Now back to topic, like I said, people are free to chose what they want to eat and that should be respected, but from there to say being a vegetarian, or an atheism makes people have a better IQ is like I said before idiotic

[yayayo]

Also I don't understand vegan ideology. Why should it be any more acceptable to slaughter plants than animals? Just because animals are more similar to humans than plants and evoke feelings of pity that plants do not? Plants are also living creatures! Assuming that slaughtering plants is acceptable while slaughtering animals is not is therefore a prime example of ideology-based Darwinism.

It is more acceptable to "slaughter" plant, since they don't feel pain.

No, it's not! Pain is an entirely human concept. Just because plants do not suffer in comparable ways like humans and animals doesn't justify that killing them is acceptable. In fact, plants clearly react to environmental stress. Some plants are also able to warn other plants of the same species when hurt by herbivores so they can release chemical deterrents.

From my point of view the statement "what does not suffer can be killed" is morally much less defensible than the statement "to live I sometimes have to kill".

Already been addressed in page 2.

No my last point was not addressed. The whole concept of suffering is a human one. It is not permissible to judge the "subjective plant reality" based on concepts from subjective human reality (note that I do not use the term "subjective" to imply consciousness in a human sense). There's no way to infer that similarity or dissimilarity makes killing wrong in one case (animals) but right in another case (plants).

Most food plants are cultivated (ill-breeded, genetically mutilated and grown in unnatural habitats) only to serve human consumption. This is in no way less condemnable than what humans do to animals.

The essence: Surviving sometimes means killing.

ya.ya.yo!

[CoinGeneral]

Now back to topic, like I said, people are free to chose what they want to eat and that should be respected, but from there to say being a vegetarian, or an atheism makes have a better IQ is like I said before idiotic

Vegetarians more intelligent than meat eaters: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201005/why-vegetarians-are-more-intelligent-meat-eaters

High IQ Children more likely to become vegetarian: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/4721

High IQ Linked to being Vegetarian: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm

The vast majority of geniuses throughout history have all been meat eaters except some from India.

This argument holds no grounds as a large majority of the population in general have been meat eaters.

Out of all the geniuses possible, will you not agree that some of the most influential geniuses of all time have been vegan / vegetarian?:

And yes, almost everyone that is a vegetarian or vegan start out as a meat eater but found information that diverted them away from it.

Einstein - Theory of Relativity. Had the most groundbreaking discovery of the 20th century.
Isaac Newton - Created Calculus and Founded Physics. He is considered the father of Physics, the father of Calculus, the Father of Modern Medicine, and even the Father of Modern Science.
Nikola Tesla - Invented the radio and Alternating Current. Has a cult following that many of his inventions were stolen.
Gandhi - Civil Rights Movement
Buddha - Founded Buddhism
Steve Jobs - Created Apple
Ramanujan - Genius mathematician.
Edward Wittin - Einstein's successor and foremost string theorist
Brian Greene - Genius who refuted Einstein's theory that space could stretch but not tear.
Rosa Parks
Thomas Edison
Benjamin Franklin
Prince
Mike Tyson
Forest Whitaker
Natalie Portman
George Bernard Shaw
Leonardo Da Vinci
Leo Tolstoy
Cesar Chavez
Russell Brand
Carl Lewis
Paul McCartney
Bree Olson
Alicia Silverstone
John Harvey Kellogg, etc.

Q: Why do you think so many of the greatest geniuses have been vegetarian?

Greene: From my limited experience, vegetarians typically are people who are willing to challenge the usual, accepted order of things. Moreover, they’re often people willing to sacrifice their own pleasures in pursuit of what they believe is right. These same qualities are often what’s needed to make great breakthroughs in the arts and sciences.

There are so many influential geniuses who have been Vegan / Vegetarian like Ellen Degeneres and the Dalai Lama. Even Hitler was a Vegetarian. These guys were all open minded and challenged the culture they were born in. Unlike you trolls.

Also, you will probably just say everything I said here is BS, which is why it's pointless to argue with you guys. This is how atheists feel when they are arguing against Christians: You can't win, even though you are right every time.

[hilariousandco]

How many times do I need to tell you?  Are you really this moronic or just trolling? My point was you put three non-religious people on a list of religious people, but you quite clearly do not have the mental capacity or intelligence to process this or are just infinitely in denial. It's not a 'fact one' because the three I mentioned are not in any way shape or form religious or believe in god. I can give you a list of prominent atheist scientists but what would that have to do with anything? What would that be proof of in itself? Would it be a fact If I added three Christian scientists to my list of atheist ones? If I was claiming Newton was an atheist that would be incorrect and fud. And "fact two"? Give me the sources that over 50% of the current prominent scientists are religious. Where's this figure come from? But not that it matters or has to do with my argument. If 50% are religious then 50% aren't. I am not nitpicking about anything. My initial argument was there's three people on the list who are not religious. Nothing more. What facts do I need to check? My facts are fine. It's yours that you need to check.

Neither, and the moronic one here is obviously the one insulting others with no reason and being really off Topic, if you have anything to say reply to me on the topic we were discussing that on instead of polluting yet another topic, can't you even do that much? and you dare to call me moronic and no mental capacity and intelligence? seriously ?
And wait so you are saying that religion has nothing to do with intelligence right ? and your whole argument is about 3 people on the list not being religious? and the rest are fine, right? so my argument on religion was correct then, thank you.

Haha you're truly incredible. You see how you twist points here and someone think you're correct on something that was never even the argument. I've given you plenty of reasons why you're a moron. How can you be correct on an argument we weren’t even discussing (although for some bizarre moronic reason you think we were) and nobody but yourself was involved with? This just proves yet again you cannot comprehend anything I say. I'm nearly done with replying to the other thread, so I suggest you stop replying to this one with your nonsense.

[lynn_402]

No my last point was not addressed. The whole concept of suffering is a human one. It is not permissible to judge the "subjective plant reality" based on concepts from subjective human reality (note that I do not use the term "subjective" to imply consciousness in a human sense). There's no way to infer that similarity or dissimilarity makes killing wrong in one case (animals) but right in another case (plants).

Most plants are cultivated (ill-breeded, genetically mutilated and grown in unnatural habitats) only to serve human consumption. This is in no way less condemnable than what humans do to animals.

The essence: Surviving sometimes means killing.

ya.ya.yo!

Plants are passive beings, feeling pain would not have helped them in any way for evolution's sake, and thus they can't feel pain. They don't have a nervous system like animals do, so all their reactions occur for no other sake than optimal growth and distribution of genes. Why would any plant adapt to feel complex sensations like pain, especially when none of them have the required nervous system to do so? It would be a waste of energy, and in nature, a waste of energy means the end of the specie.

[CoinDiver]

MEAT!

[kuroman]

How many times do I need to tell you?  Are you really this moronic or just trolling? My point was you put three non-religious people on a list of religious people, but you quite clearly do not have the mental capacity or intelligence to process this or are just infinitely in denial. It's not a 'fact one' because the three I mentioned are not in any way shape or form religious or believe in god. I can give you a list of prominent atheist scientists but what would that have to do with anything? What would that be proof of in itself? Would it be a fact If I added three Christian scientists to my list of atheist ones? If I was claiming Newton was an atheist that would be incorrect and fud. And "fact two"? Give me the sources that over 50% of the current prominent scientists are religious. Where's this figure come from? But not that it matters or has to do with my argument. If 50% are religious then 50% aren't. I am not nitpicking about anything. My initial argument was there's three people on the list who are not religious. Nothing more. What facts do I need to check? My facts are fine. It's yours that you need to check.

Neither, and the moronic one here is obviously the one insulting others with no reason and being really off Topic, if you have anything to say reply to me on the topic we were discussing that on instead of polluting yet another topic, can't you even do that much? and you dare to call me moronic and no mental capacity and intelligence? seriously ?
And wait so you are saying that religion has nothing to do with intelligence right ? and your whole argument is about 3 people on the list not being religious? and the rest are fine, right? so my argument on religion was correct then, thank you.

Haha you're truly incredible. You see how you twist points here and someone think you're correct on something that was never even the argument. I've given you plenty of reasons why you're a moron. How can you be correct on an argument we weren’t even discussing (although for some bizarre moronic reason you think we were) and nobody but yourself was involved with? This just proves yet again you cannot comprehend anything I say. I'm nearly done with replying to the other thread, so I suggest you stop replying to this one with your nonsense.

sigh! can't you reply to me on the topic we were discussing this on instead of just insulting, you do like polluting other people topics don't you? are your brain capacity fails to do this much? after the 5 time asking you to do so I'm starting to believe it is the case. Post on the correct thread, and I'll be more than happy to reply to you and dismantle anything you say with facts.

MEAT!

is that rabbit? It looks like it is just want confirmation

[CoinGeneral]

No my last point was not addressed. The whole concept of suffering is a human one. It is not permissible to judge the "subjective plant reality" based on concepts from subjective human reality (note that I do not use the term "subjective" to imply consciousness in a human sense). There's no way to infer that similarity or dissimilarity makes killing wrong in one case (animals) but right in another case (plants).

Most food plants are cultivated (ill-breeded, genetically mutilated and grown in unnatural habitats) only to serve human consumption. This is in no way less condemnable than what humans do to animals.

The essence: Surviving sometimes means killing.

ya.ya.yo!

1) The plants we consume have evolved over time to be consumed by humans and other animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_plants

2) Plants are a completely different kingdom than the animal kingdom. They don't have a neural network. They don't have the same type of cells as we do. They can't even move. You can't say they experience the same things as us as that is an ignorant assumption you are making.

3) When we eat a plant product such as potato, tomato, apple, pineapple, broccoli, etc, we are not eating the plant itself, but rather a 'fruit' or part of the plant that easily comes off. The rest of the plant keeps growing and produces more.

[hilariousandco]

How many times do I need to tell you?  Are you really this moronic or just trolling? My point was you put three non-religious people on a list of religious people, but you quite clearly do not have the mental capacity or intelligence to process this or are just infinitely in denial. It's not a 'fact one' because the three I mentioned are not in any way shape or form religious or believe in god. I can give you a list of prominent atheist scientists but what would that have to do with anything? What would that be proof of in itself? Would it be a fact If I added three Christian scientists to my list of atheist ones? If I was claiming Newton was an atheist that would be incorrect and fud. And "fact two"? Give me the sources that over 50% of the current prominent scientists are religious. Where's this figure come from? But not that it matters or has to do with my argument. If 50% are religious then 50% aren't. I am not nitpicking about anything. My initial argument was there's three people on the list who are not religious. Nothing more. What facts do I need to check? My facts are fine. It's yours that you need to check.

Neither, and the moronic one here is obviously the one insulting others with no reason and being really off Topic, if you have anything to say reply to me on the topic we were discussing that on instead of polluting yet another topic, can't you even do that much? and you dare to call me moronic and no mental capacity and intelligence? seriously ?
And wait so you are saying that religion has nothing to do with intelligence right ? and your whole argument is about 3 people on the list not being religious? and the rest are fine, right? so my argument on religion was correct then, thank you.

Haha you're truly incredible. You see how you twist points here and someone think you're correct on something that was never even the argument. I've given you plenty of reasons why you're a moron. How can you be correct on an argument we weren’t even discussing (although for some bizarre moronic reason you think we were) and nobody but yourself was involved with? This just proves yet again you cannot comprehend anything I say. I'm nearly done with replying to the other thread, so I suggest you stop replying to this one with your nonsense.

sigh! can't you reply to me on the topic we were discussing this on instead of just insulting, you do like polluting other people topics don't you? are your brain capacity fails to do this much? after the 5 time asking you to do so I'm starting to believe it is the case. Post on the correct thread, and I'll be more than happy to reply to you and dismantle anything you say with facts.

Seems like your brain is failing . "are your brain capacity fails to do this much?" doesn't make any sense. And 'dismantle anything you say with facts' lol. I definitely know you’re a troll now.

[kuroman]

3) When we eat a plant product such as potato, tomato, apple, pineapple, broccoli, etc, we are not eating the planet itself, but rather a 'fruit' or part of the plant that easily comes off. The rest of the plant keeps growing and produces more.

Since it is a conversation between you two I don't want to middle but I'll just reply to this since you are writing in bold, hmm wouldn't a similar analogy to the animal world, is to leave the animals on their own and eat everything they give birth for ? I mean if you take for example potatoes aren't potatoes the seed for future potato plants the same is giving birth to spread ?

Seems like your brain is failing . "are your brain capacity fails to do this much?" doesn't make any sense. And 'dismantle anything you say with facts' lol. I definitely know you’re a troll now.

How am I a troll? you are not replying to me on the correct thread and you are polluting other topics with this discussion, sorry but if anyone is trolling here it would be you. yeah and again thank you for pointing out my poor grammar and typos, like I said before English is the 4th language I speak, if you want to pick on that feel free to do so as if I care.

[yayayo]

I assume you read what I wrote in the paragraph, but did not read the substance that was quoted. Let me reiterate:

I read all. But apparently you do not get the substance of my post:

The whole concept of suffering is a human one. It is not permissible to judge the "subjective plant reality" based on concepts from subjective human reality (note that I do not use the term "subjective" to imply consciousness in a human sense). There's no way to infer that similarity or dissimilarity makes killing wrong in one case (animals) but right in another case (plants).

That plants do not have a nervous system comparable to animals is of zero relevance to the whole argument.


My last point

Most food plants are cultivated (ill-breeded, genetically mutilated and grown in unnatural habitats) only to serve human consumption.

was not refuted.


ya.ya.yo!