[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg I am under no obligation to bring forth negative evidence as you have not provided positive evidence then.

Where have I told you to prove a negative? You have brought up the point that plants feel pain or are alluding to it. If you don`t believe they do, then why bring it up? Since you allude to they do feel pain, then that is a positive and that is what you should set out to do -- to prove your assertion of a positive.

You can disprove a positive and a negative equally. You are obviously asserting they don't suffer.

Society, science and acadamia rests on proving positives. Since there is no evidence in the positive supporting or proving that plants feel pain and suffer, no one is under any obligation to give credence to that thought. Why do you?

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.

If you are saying they feel "some way" that is akin to suffering and pain that we can relate to, then bring forth that well accepted information on the matter. Or, are you just guessing? How do/can you relate to their pain? Since you assert they suffer then what is it that leads you to believe that?

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.

You are woefully misguided about proofs and evidence as to what is expected and more often accepted in the field of debate, assertions, and proofs. Proving negatives has never been given an equal footing of importance as to what people choose when putting forth their arguments -- at least not most educated people. Though, there are those people who persist on being abnomalies -- just as surely there are a few people who persist in stating/believing the world is flat.

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.

So what? Everyone knows that looks as it concerns the evidence can be decieving at times. That is not the point of "probability." We live our lives on what is most probable but allow for improbabilities as well. But, what is most probable is the guiding light of how we live and interact with our world.

Look, it is most probable that a meteor will not hit Earth in the next second. See! Probability wins. I did not give credence that the antithesis of that probability (i.e. the inprobable) was about to happen. Very few people do, unless they are in the grips of some form of neurotic mental state.

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.

WHAT! The construction of that sentence leaves me baffled. Could you reword it or quote the place of mine you are referring to so I can understand what you are trying to say that I said.

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.

Man, I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps someone could translate for you. Anyone here care to breakdown what Kubedawg is trying to say or put across. I am left speechless trying to follow that. Perhaps someone else could explain what he has said if you understand it. I most certainly didn`t.

Ok show me where a plant screams when it's tore from the roots in which it came.

Why should I show you that -- I am not asserting they scream. Haven`t you noticed that?

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.

That is right. We can relate to animal pain. We are not sure if plant pain even exists. It has not been proven. If you are using it as a construct for your argument, then you should show that it is a credible construct by bringing forth the evidence. YOu have not posted any link information on accepted belief in science on plant pain. Why not?

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, ...

What do you mean by "how much life"? Without a brain, central nervous system and nerve cells, it is probable that it does not feel pain -- not as we know or can relate to it -- and if they feel something that is not what we know or can relate to as pain, then it is not pain. Simple deduction can tell you that. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but it needs to be proven that it is pain, and until it is proven so, we are right in acknowledging that it is improper that they do feel pain. Still, you are under the obligatiton to bring forth proof that plants can suffer or feel pain. You have and continue to fail to do so.

The question in point is not if they are alive, we know that plants are living -- the point that makes them valid for consideration is if they can feel pain. Now, where is that proof you have not proffered as of yet?

so stop assuming that hurting animals less justifiable than hurting a plant.

It most surely is. Look at our societies. We give more consideration to animals than plants. Throw a dandilion out of your car on a highway and it will go unoticed (unless and overly aggressive police trumps up a litter violation on you), but throw a kitten out of a car and you will stand the risk of facing cruelty charges that will incur a fine and possibly a prison sentence -- not to mention the psychological counseling you will receive while in prison.