Plants Can Tell When They’re Being Eaten And Send Distress Signalls - take this vegetarians - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Seith;46293479]dude who in the hell would play with a cow?[/QUOTE] cows are cool as fuck dude [editline]21st October 2014[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtxiRt8SZTQ[/media]

[QUOTE=Alex141;46286964]They will only eat fallen leaves now[/QUOTE] You're probably joking but there are people who call themselves 'fruitarians' and only eat fruit and such that was'designed' to be eaten for seed spreading. They don't even eat vegetables since it kills the plant.

[QUOTE=G71tc4;46293583]cows are cool as fuck dude [editline]21st October 2014[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtxiRt8SZTQ[/media][/QUOTE] shit you right

When someone mows their lawn, it must be like a bloodbath for all of the blades of grass.

[QUOTE=Calyx_;46293597]You're probably joking but there are people who call themselves 'fruitarians' and only eat fruit and such that was'designed' to be eaten for seed spreading. They don't even eat vegetables since it kills the plant.[/QUOTE] Yeah and they're dumb as shit.

I'm not a vegetarian, but plants sending distress signals doesn't even compare to the torture animals go through in the slaughterhouses.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46292768']While I think there's a moral aspect to not killing sentient things, I also recognize that we do live in a world with suffering and that it isn't feasible to give every wild animal a comfy pillow and a life free from burden or suffering. It's also impossible to prevent the food chain from occurring in nature. I don't blame anyone of a lower class for eating meat, because many people do not have another option. From a utilitarian perspective, the poor or those in the third world will have better lives than not by eating meat. Simply establishing guidelines for the sake of the welfare of the animals is the best alternative here. Just like with war, it's not so simple to say "alright, we seek peace in the developed world, now let's go arrest all those warmakers and soldiers in Africa"- we have to accept that that's not a possibility and that this is due to socioeconomic forces beyond anyone's control currently. While no one expects Africa to become peaceful just because pacifists say so, we can emplace peacekeepers and rules on conflict that hopefully lessens the negative impact. This is the same with animal rights- we can't prevent animals being slaughtered in Africa, but we also can't prevent humans from being slaughtered, and this is for the same reason really. "Alright stop killing each other, Africans" is just as ridiculous as "Alright, quite killing animals, Africans." Of course we could be and should be doing more to establish welfare guidelines, but these things will come when we lift Africa out of poverty and see the continent develop. [editline]21st October 2014[/editline] I would say yes. I would also say it's acceptable to kill an animal if it's out of necessity, like your living situation prevents you from living if you don't eat animals- that is, if you're impoverished or from a developing nation or extreme rural location. Like I've said above the issue isn't with the meat itself so much as the "right to life" and prevention of suffering of living things. If an animal dies of natural causes, then that's not something imposed by humans and is fair game- it wasn't killed for the sake of eating it, so its "right to life" was not infringed. Similarly, when it comes down between "me or them", then I don't blame any humans for choosing "me", but of course you would need to prove that is the case- that you will suffer if they do not- for it to be justified in my book.[/QUOTE] Just wanted to say that this might be the first time I've actually read a vegetarian's stance on this issue, that was this well-presented. As in without any condescension or blame in regards to non-vegetarians. This way of looking at the problem also somewhat resonates with me.