You have to kill to live

Starve yourself to death if you care so much, gaylord.

You don't have to justify something for it to be so. While you're worrying about justice, the lion is devouring you.

I only eat air, motherfuckers

Where's your god now?

A fruitarian diet is the only morally right way for humans to eat since we understand that we do not need to kill other organisms for food. That being said its very impractical for us to change our diets to fruitarian and it may not be very healthy for us.

>In a human society you don't

What do you eat? Things that were alive that had to be killed for you to eat, right?

I'm a neo-pagan and one of my chosen deities is the representation of the element of air.
How dare you consume a living being.

Are you a sponge?
You don't have to eat only fruit. A lot of vegetables produce food that we can pick an harvest without killing the plant itself. We could even eat bread if we wanted to.

You kill countless plants and organisms even eating a 'vegan' diet.

You don't have to eat animals.

The weak must fear the strong.

The strong do nothing wrong.

Sponges are filter feeders. They most certainly do kill things in order to live. Plankton.

There's only two varieties of macroscopic life that don't kill in order to live, in the general case.
That's plants and fungi.

*ironically even so, plant life and fungal life kill each other in competition for resources, and prevent other life from taking root. Because of this, the only way plants and fungi can avoid killing things is through human activity--agriculture (hydroponics)

Even by being vegan you are killing life
Plants are not less valuble than an animal, since we need plants in our eco system.
But modern capitalism is evil, since we are taking away alot of life to contribute to greed

What if you get ill?

It's billions of microbes against just one human life. You aren't a specist, are you?

Ok

Animals arent the only living beings

I don't kill members of my species to survive so i don't carry any emotional weight for killing beings beneath me

Ass has a lot of meat.

it's all part of the dialectic.

that was easy.

...

You have to kill a banana tree to eat a banana. There are many plants out there that fruit once and are then destroyed because they either can't fruit again or its quicker to plant another tree than it is to fruit them again.

When trees are found to have some sort of sentience and thought (they already do) what the fuck are you going to do?

Sentience, sure, plants grow towards light so they have sense of some kind. Thought? Without nervous tissue? Preposterous.

So you are drawing lines in the sand. Prove animals think. Prove they aren't simply sentient. You won't win this, you're simply an egotistical idiot.

sponges are animals lmao

So then, why are you not eating animals. Subjective answers like, it's wrong, do not count. You have to use reasoning. It's now clear you've got none, you're an idiot.

Plants are living too
It's impossible to eat something that wasn't alive at some point unless you exclusively devour sodium.

If you ate non-living things then your food source would only be temporary and you would starve eventually.

Water and life are recycled/renewed endlessly.

I can provide plenty of evidence for animals being capable of thought, you can provide zero evidence that plants can. Case closed, you are a faggot.

Lel, no you cannot. You can say a cow does things and has a brain therefore it thinks, but plants do the same thing (recreate, procreate, survive, remember) everything an animal does but it doesn't "think" our definition and idea of thinking is simply wrong. A plant experiences everything a living thing does, just to a different extent, you are still killing and eating it. Plants are capable of decision making and transgenerational memory, it's obviously got some level of thought, it's just nowhere near the same as "generic thought".

Justify it. Like you've shifted the goal post away form the justification to attacking the argument, just for the sake of argument accept it and attempt to justify it.

forgot pic.

>our definition and idea of thinking is simply wrong

Impossible since that's not how words work. Usage cannot be "wrong" since it from usage that definitions are derived, not vice versa.

>attacking the argument
You don't have an argument to attack, just a bald assertion. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. You are dismissed.

It is the result of our fallenness.

Indeed. Now let us praise HaShem and endeavour to live up to our mitzvot!

Nice try at deflecting, but I've said 3 times now that you are shifting the goal posts. I guess you tried, but if you have nothing to say don't even bother replying again, but I mean, of course you will.

>can provide plenty of evidence for animals being capable of thought,
>Lel, no you cannot.
Nice evidence.

holy shit, how did it know the polls were there?

You made the absurd claim that plants can think, and offered exactly nothing to support it. This is beyond laughable, you are truly a simpleton.

Ask me for evidence that the sky is blue while you're at it you pathetic faggot. You want evidence that animals can think? Try google.com you imbecile.

It's just an evolved form of bacteria nourishing another bacteria.

Nope, I said they have some level of thought. I didn't say they can think, and I have asked you to justify why thinking is a requirement of whether or not you eat it, you didn't.

>it's obviously got some level of thought, it's just nowhere near the same as "generic thought".
Therein lies my whole argument, plants are capable of decision making and memory retention so there is obviously some level of thought, not via the brain, but plants are obviously examples of thought we do not understand.

If you think that's an absurd claim, it's backed up by plant neuroscience (google it). You should really calm down and access your own argument, because I mean, all you've done is use ad hom.

Your counter argument that things happen for no reason and not because we don't understand is the laughable one.

>he actually replied again.

Nice evidence though.

wasn't my idea

Imbecile.

Great argument though.

>vegetarians everyone.

Since you are a wiki scholar I will paraphrase the wiki you are not reading.

>Plants do not have a brain or neuronal network, but reactions within signalling pathways may provide a biochemical basis for learning and memory in addition to computation and problem solving.[31] Controversially, the brain is used as a metaphor in plant intelligence to provide an integrated view of signalling.[32]

>They communicate while actively competing for resources. In addition, plants accurately compute their circumstances, use sophisticated cost–benefit analysis and take tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control diverse environmental stressors. Plants are also capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of "learning" (registering memories) from their past experiences.[33][34][35] Plants use this information to update their behaviour in order to survive present and future challenges of their environment.

>so there is obviously some level of thought, not via the brain, but plants are obviously examples of thought we do not understand.

>>You have to compete to live
>Justify this.
>inb4 but IT ISNT AS BAD BECAUSE I DONT CARE ABOUT SUFFERING XDDD