[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin That still doesn`t answer CaptC`s "yes/no" question put to you. I think he has asked several times already -- right, CC?

Oh but I did earlier in this debate when we were arguing about the responsibility we have to cause animals to be born/killed by creating the market for it. I believe animals should be able to live, but as I have said in the past, if I were a cow or a chicken, I'd rather have the market there for me to be born in the first place, even if it were to mean I would have to die just to be fed to a human. If we ceased eating meat, the markets would cease to exist, causing no more breeding of these animals that some vegetarians are trying to "protect" but in fact, they are the ones that will lead to the demise of these animals, because having a life is better than not having a life at all.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Nerves are needed to feel what we define as pain. Plants do not have nerves. Animals do. How can they be the same then? Please direct us to a scientific site/journal/article respected amongst peers in the scientific community that states plants are "able to feel and to suffer" despite lacking the equipment to do so.

How do we know plants don't have different types of nerves than humans or animals? It'd make sense because plants are completely different than humans or animals. One could say that because plants have the ability to sense something touching it, that is one of the 5 senses we as humans poses. Touch. Because we can feel, we can suffer. So again, it makes sense to say that because plants have the ability to sense something touching it, it may have the ability to suffer.

Don't take my word for it though, read this:
Can Plants feel pain?
Q&A on bio.net

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Could you others please point out to Kubedawg that there is no scholarly or scientific evidence showing that plants feel pain and that therefore we are under no obligation to accept that in arguments -- since it is not proven -- even remotely not accepted by scientists. If you others could point this out to him, perhaps it would let us move on from this point and its absurdity that probably most are tired of seeing dragged up again and again.

Like I've stated before, just because something is not proven, and is widely accepted that it's true, does not make it so. Just because something is not accepted, does NOT make it UNtrue. It just means there is a positive and a negative, like everything else that is unproven. And no it is not neurotic to believe in a negative, as science has proven to be wrong in the past, and will most likely prove wrong in the future on many different subjects.