[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It has not been proven or even close to proven that they do. I am under no obligation to prove a negative. Are you asserting that they do? If so, then bring forth the positive evidence for such.

I am under no obligation to bring forth negative evidence as you have not provided positive evidence then. You can disprove a positive and a negative equally. You are obviously asserting they don't suffer.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kubedawg, do you really mean I have to provide a link to you to tell you that plants do not have a central nervous system or are incapable of locamotion, birthing young, etc... Those are all self evident as surely as stating the sky has clouds.

I'm not saying they feel the exact same way any animal does, but that doesn't mean it doesn't suffer in a very different way either.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin You are the one bringing up the assertion, or alluding to it that plants are not different from animals and experience pain or suffering, so you provide that positive which you are alluding to.

We can keep going back and forth like this, but it won't really solve anything unless one of us provides our positive or negative as they are equally important. Just because something is probable, even if there is evidence, does not make something true and vice versa, if something is improbable, with lack of evidence, it does not make it false. You were the first to state plants, when consumed by an animal, then the animal, being rpoduced, is less life than that of the animal in which it came. Let's look at the plant and the animal as a whole. The animal, whatever kind, eats whole plants, except for the roots generally. The human eats a part of the animal, certainly not as much as the human would eat a plant as if it were in it's whole form, like a carrot. You're not goin to just eat a small amount of that carrot, because you're hungry, the same can be said that you're not going to eat a whole cow, because you're not that hungry... Positives and negatives once again meet in the middle, equally.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin But to humor you, show me anti-cruelty laws on the book directed at protecting plants from cruel acts. A quick look and you can find numerouls anti-cruelty laws in place for animals. Society doesn`t seem to backing your plant = animal ruse at discrediting the interests for and in lessening exploitation of animals.

Ok show me where a plant screams when it's tore from the roots in which it came. And then show me footage where an animal is being tortured. It is evident you can see the suffering of the animal, but not the plant. But then again, it cannot speak. But does that rule out the possibility of it suffering once it has been chopped up? It obviously has life, we've both admitted this, but how much life does it have comparing it to an anmial? It's unknown, so stop assuming that hurting animals less justifiable than hurting a plant. Just like creationism and evolution. We know evolution exist today, but before we first existed, we have no clue. All the studies can be done in the world, and all the probability and testing and experimenting, but because we were not able to be there @ that time in history, it is unknown, therefore, it cannot be factual to say evolution is how we were created, just as much as we can disprove creationism. This is just a different type of proving something does or does not happen the way we think it does. Your intentions are good, I understand that animals should not be harmed before being killed, but what about the plants?