True, plants do respond to some stimuli and according to researches they even feel pain in some way.
I have never found similar research about seed that plants voluntarily give away (including tomato ).
However they don't have nerve system and don't "feel" the same way we do. We can for now at least start, reduce the suffering and leave question about plants for the future.
Sense of something being "normal" because "everyone does it" is a very wrong one. E.g. not so long time ago even Aristotle claimed slavery was a natural law.
Humans can have empathy, so being able to conjure emotions of another fellow living beings with exactly the same basic instinctive feelings (fear, pain, love, happiness, despair...) combined with the current technology level, there should be no need anymore to produce yearly billions of terrified souls and unnecessary industrialized deaths.
There is absolutely no difference in your feelings by being slaughtered and the same experience of e.g. cattle or a pig (this is the mildest video I could find).
The same for the conditions where for example you would be unable to move for days in unnatural positions, with broken hands, etc.

Ethics is not limited to human beings only, unless you are anthropocentric or deeply (abrahamic) religious person.

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity

Are seeds the only part of plants that are eaten by humans?

A belief that is now being challenged by some.

As would also seem to be the case for the vast majority of animals.

A view that many hold to be anthropomorphic, one that does, in truth, assume facts not in evidence for other than a very small number of creatures.

This is not to say that animals should or need be treated in a manner wholly insensitive to their own sensibilities. And, having been raised in the traditions of both farming and hunting, I can, without fear of contradiction, state that animals, both domesticated and wild, can and are used as food in a manner such that their deaths are far more swift and painless than those experienced by the overwhelming majority of wild and feral creatures.

What in the Abrahamic religions serves to differentiate them form other beliefs with respect to the treatment of animals?

__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com
http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com

No, but some vegetarians in dealing with the assumption that plants do feel, propose or practice eating seeds only, thus still including all the fruit and most of other vegetables.

So because their deaths are more 'human' when we kill them (btw not true), because they do it among themselves anyway, because there is no evidence of suffering for other than a very small number of creatures (and btw that very small number is huge majority in our industry) should be enough for an argument to excuse slaughtering as an industrial business?

The right question should be: Do we really need to do it today?


The superiority given by God, which is very distinctive from most other (meat eating) religions when it comes to the relationship with animals.

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity

Most wild & feral mammals & avians, along with many rodents, do not die by predation; rather, they suffer prolonged and painful deaths from starvation and dehydration. On the other hand, when I take a deer, with a shot to the head, it dies quickly, with little to no suffering.

I made no statement defending the inhumane treatment suffered by many animals at the hands of some. Furthermore, how some are treated, and by whom, is wholly separate from the issue of whether or not they should be eaten.

What "superiority given by God?"

__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com
http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com

Hm, good solution for sickness prevention.
Would you do it to your friend too?

OK, why should they be eaten?

Ever heard of e.g. Bible?

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity

Relevance?

It is your assertion that, , despite the fact that we evolved as omnivores, they should not be eaten. Therefore, the question of why not is yours to answer and substantiate.

Begs the question as to what in the Scriptures of the Abrahamic religions supports your contention.

__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com
http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com

Rationality.


Why not eating people? Why not slavery?


Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

"People aren't the same as seeds. You made people to be like you, and then you created all plants and animals for them."

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity

Non sequitur

Non-responsive, irrelevant & non sequitur. Neither cannibalism nor slavery are the issue at hand.

To repeat, the proposition, and thus the burden of proof, is yours.

I would suggest that, rather than looking to modern translations of the Christian Bible, you turn to the original, in its original language. Even the King James Rev. version, with its use of the word "dominion," is far better than the one you here quote from.

The original meaning of what was interpreted as "dominion" is not that of an arbitrary & capricious authority, but rather one that carries with it a commensurate responsibility of stewardship. This in the same sense as the relationship between parent and child.

That many use Scripture as means of attempting to justify their claims of authority without responsibility does not serve to make it so.

Quoted from what?

__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com
http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com

Non sequitor for one's mindset, of course. Debating meat eating with someone who's killing for pleasure requires at least some common ground in basic principles. Poles away.
When you answer the cannibalism and slavery, you will have the answer to this question too.

From me, among the others. Try Altavista.

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity

Also non sequitur.

Mis-representative and assumes facts not in evidence. Were one to allow such, it can then be argued with equal force that you kill plants for pleasure.

Only if one accepts your implied anthropomorphic premise.

To repeat, stop relying on faulty translations and look to the original.

__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com
http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com

How do you define hunting? A sport?


I agree with that.


You got one? In English?

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity

No, I do not. I hunt, not for any delight beyond that which Nature might send my way, but for sustenance. My approach to hunting is not unlike that of the early Native Americans, who begged of the spirit of the slain forgiveness for having forced them to depart their corporeal form.

I was raised amidst the mountains of central Pennsylvania, the descendant of families both of which have deep roots in nature, and the traditions of lumbering, farming, hunting and fishing, the names of which would be easily recognizable to those knowledgeable of early American history. From these I was imbued with a great and abiding respect for Nature and all of her creations, was taught that I was charged to be a good steward of all of such.

Whether hunting, fishing or gathering wild edibles, I take no more than needed, carefully selecting that which I take, giving care so to ensure that my taking does not endanger the survival of that which remains. In return for their giving to me, I give to those from whom I take; I render food to the hungry, medical care to the stricken, shelter to those without.

That premise, though, is not an a priori one, but rather one that is a posteriori, and therefore one that cannot be taken as a given, but must be proven to be true prior to its being used as support for any argued for conclusion.

Sorry, but such does not, by definition, exist; you'll need to either become a scholar of Hebrew Scripture or rely on those who are.

__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com
http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com

Because you have no other choices?

Lol, thank you. This one deserves to be put in a signature.
Some people are masters in diluting the essence of a thought and converting it into pseudo philosophical particles. Congratulations.

Yes, I agree with your statement "Only if one accepts your implied anthropomorphic premise." as I already said the same thing before; the one that we need common ground in our basic perceptions of freedom and rights and to whom they should be granted.
For you it is naturally "anthropomorphic premise" for the reason it being beyond your basic principles.

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity

Irrelevant and mis-directive, as your question was whether or not hunting is for me a sport.

Given the absence of objective support for your position, it is a philosophical matter!

Conflating the refusal of another to accept your unsubstantiated premise as fact with "being beyond [their] basic principles" is specious to the point of bordering on being ad hominem.

The fact remains that there is no objective basis for your premise. Mere response to stimuli in a manner that mimics that of a human in no way bespeaks of sentience. Your premise is but an article of faith; and, proclaiming it to be self-evident differs naught from those who hold religious scriptures to be revealed truths.

__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com
http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com

No, that was my suggestion.
But just as with everything else extremely relevant, you evade straight answers by simply declaring it nonsense


Objective support by who's measures?

Indeed I used ad hominem approach but not for the reason and in the way you put it. My apologies for that, although the unnecessary hunting issue always puts me into higher emotional arousal.

- Sir, why you killed and mutilated the postman
- Well... I was hungry.

- But didn't you have other choices to feed yourself? And don't you think it's wrong?
- Only if one accepts your implied anthropomorphic premise. You probably eat meat and even vegetables too.
Besides, postmen have poor life and do not die peacefully, rather, they suffer prolonged and painful deaths from starvation and sickness. On the other hand, when I take a postman, with a shot to the head, it dies quickly, with little to no suffering.

- But Sir, he had a right to live just like you do. Would you do it to your loved one?
- Non-responsive, irrelevant & non sequitur. My family is not the issue at hand.

- Don't you think he had feelings just like you have.
- The fact remains that there is no objective basis for your premise. Mere response to stimuli in a manner that mimics that of me or my family in no way bespeaks of sentience. Your premise is but an article of faith; and, proclaiming it to be self-evident differs naught from those who hold religious scriptures to be revealed truths.

- OK
- That premise, though, is not an a priori one, but rather one that is a posteriori, and therefore one that cannot be taken as a given, but must be proven to be true prior to its being used as support for any argued for conclusion.

__________________
Vote Hussein, vote humanity