greetings gfv! and welcome to 30bad!
exactly what veggies having souls has to do with anything is somewhat of a mystery.
a slightly more intelligent attack on veg is trying the "plants suffer too" effort.
the matter has been thorough discussed in jacob's thread here:
of course that attempts fails dismally because there are so many counter-attacks like:
if plants really suffer, you should go veg because then you won't have to cause double suffering first to the plants which are fed to the animals who then suffer because you slaughter them.
slightly more intelligent than the plant suffering bit is the "you kill animals by harvesting plants" effort. there is truth to this because mass agriculture likely does cause the deaths of some insects and may be rodents. harvesting undoubtedly destroys existing habitats of some creatures who have settled in during growing season. however, the idea of this jab is absurdly directed at complaining that you kill more eating a plant diet than a corpse one. considering that 50-80% of grains (etc) go to fattening animals who are then slaughtered, the argument is a ridiculous one since if we killed the meat industry, you'd save not only the victims of slaughterhouses, but also most of the victims of agribusiness.
so some crapaleo groups try to 'modify' this argument by introducing the 'benefits' of grass-fed cattle, using flawed arithmetic as you'll see here:
the mass murdering plant industry rationalization (and subsequent posts)
the thing to remember is that these 'attacks' aren't an attempt to make a legitimate or factual argument. they are merely a desperation to undermine the veg effort with the "i'm bad, but so are you" accusation. this is known as the tu quoque fallacy, practised by rather immature individuals who have no substance with which to counter their personal support of the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of animals.
Fruit plants are not killed when we eat them - it's quite the opposite. The plant depends on the fruit being eaten in order for its seeds to be dispersed. The tree lives on while the fruits are plucked off by animals. The fruit is specifically designed to be eaten. That is why it is brightly colored, sweet, and contains seeds.
I am speechless when somebody comes with the "all life is equal" and that eating to get nutrients is imperfect, and because this state of evolution is imperfect and all life is equal it doesn't matter if you eat plants or animals.... Maybe pradtf can learn me some arguments beside the facepalm I usually use :D
Maybe pradtf can learn me some arguments beside the facepalm I usually use :D
if you are going to palm anyone's face, it shouldn't be your own! :D
when people are desperate, they'll try anything even though they know how ridiculous their effort is. you can take advantage of this ... and even enjoy yourself.
here's something you might find fun to look at:
and the link there to the main fallacy list:
it's a project some of us at 30bad (and beyond) have been developing. there are many fallacy sites out there, but none that specifically address the remarkable nonsense in the ar/veg area with actual examples. take a look and if you have some goodies, i'll put them in!
if you want deeper arguments, you can examine B's
where you'll see lots of analysis to many issues we come up against. some excellent debating examples from jacob there too, btw.
and if you want to see a professional animal rights ethicist at work, just look up my friend
put that palm of yours in those faces that deserve it! ;)
frugivores are seed dispersers, us being #1 in that , the plants evolved / enticed us to spread their seeds and operate on harvest cycles .
Haha I Loved everyones replies especially the lets eat rocks and water thing. Also great counterarguments pradtf. It totally seems like we were meant to spread seed, I was eating some wild grapes at work the other day and was thinking (this is kinda crude) but whether we spit the seed out or it goes through the digestive process its gunna be spread.