(10-04-2014, 02:46 PM)Parsons Wrote:(10-04-2014, 09:27 AM)Monica Wrote:(10-04-2014, 05:54 AM)Parsons Wrote: Not knowing how the plant feels does not give carte blanche to assume they don't suffer.
Not knowing how the plant feels does not give carte blanche to cause suffering to animals, whom we know with 100% certainty DO suffer.
This is a perfect example of a post where you don't actually address the logic of my point and sidestep it. You are still ignoring the fact that if both plants and animals suffer, no matter what, a part of the Creator is suffer to feed you.
(10-04-2014, 09:27 AM)Monica Wrote:(10-04-2014, 05:54 AM)Parsons Wrote: If the plant suffers, your argument falls apart because no matter what, a part of the second density Creator is suffering.
The plant does not have vocal chords or lungs or limbs to flail about when dying. It can not viscerally express suffering. An apt analogy would be a person who is complelty paralized but has control of their senses. A better analogy would be if an animal were to be compltely paralized but could still experience all 5 physical senses. If they were tortured (not going to get graphic, use your imagination) and are unable to cry out in pain or unable to physically react in any way, is it safe to assume they aren't suffering?
You haven't bothered to read those discussions about plants, have you? This has already been addressed extensively. I'm not going to waste my time repeating it all for you. I will say only that your analogy is poor, because a paralyzed person wasn't designed that way.
Yes, I read your post about the suffering of plants. You do a bunch of theorizing about the group soul of plants vs the individual souls of animals. Unless you can point me towards a Ra quote which says that is the case for all animals (pets or 2D beings ready to graduate excluded), I'm assuming you are manufacturing a theory to fill yet another logical hole in your reasoning.
Honestly, I'm not trying to convert anyone into eating meat. In fact, I support anyone's choice to be a vegetarian. The only reason I'm even discussing this is to provide an understanding that a person who is spiritually awake AND aware of how animals(and plants) are treated that are used for food can still make the choice of being an omnivore.
It has become apparent to me that you will twist, stretch, or just completely manufacture baseless reasoning to justify your intolerance towards opinions similar to mine. It is, of course, your Choice to try to convince (control) those people of that opinion into believing what they are doing is supporting cruelty/polarizing STS by eating meat. However, I am done engaging you in your sermon about the sins of eating meat.
Just documenting your insults. If I were still moderator I'd refer you to guideline #1.
(10-04-2014, 09:27 AM)Monica Wrote:(10-04-2014, 05:54 AM)Parsons Wrote: Not knowing how the plant feels does not give carte blanche to assume they don't suffer.
Not knowing how the plant feels does not give carte blanche to cause suffering to animals, whom we know with 100% certainty DO suffer.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, eating animals causes many MORE plants to die.
Documenting the rest of my comments that got left out.