Even if plants felt pain just as animals do, I still would eat only plants.  This is because we use an enormous amount of plants to feed the animals that we raise for food.  In other words, you overall   kill less plants consuming a strict vegetarian diet than when you consume animal products.

But I agree, people that say things like that aren't looking for polite debate--they're trying to be funny, or they're being defensive by trying to rationalize their own dietary choices.

::nodding:::

i like your comments, hopfrog. whenever you post before me i usually don't have to because you say EXACTLY what i was going to say (including your next post that, for the sake of brevity, i am not going to quote).

That's so funny, hedespal, I think the SAME thing about Hopfrog! I always take her recipe advice too.

I thought it was jainism that would mean only eating plant matter that does not hurt the actual organism (the fruit, but not the seed). I thought fruitarianism included seed... Hmm...

(but also, some seeds actually require animal digestion in order for a protective coat to be removed, so once excreted (er, pooped out), it could grow.)

I've heard of 'tests' or 'studies' or whatnot about the effects on plants of screaming, different music, singing, talking, whatever, and I totally went with it myself, until I needed to use it in a paper (I think) and couldn't find evidence for any test, ever. Has anyone else? I think most people just go by anecdotal evidence (e.g., my mom sings to her tomatoes and they do great. my boyfriend refused to talk to his rose, and it died).

As far as the plants that will die after 3-6 months of planting... most of our modern agricultural plants have been selectively bred since who-knows-when. I don't know what natural, but I know that mustard's species has got a lot of distinctly different members (kale, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, etc). Also, plants don't typically just die when it's their time; they usually seed. Eating the plant before this may mean eating immature seeds (or no seeds), and the plant never gets to reproduce. It hasn't fulfilled it's "purpose" or natural cycle or whatever you want to call it...

Mmmmm.......fruitarianism.  This appeals to me.  I read up on it before, but completely shruged it off, thinking it could not be healthy.  Can one get all the nessecary nutrients in life through fruits/seeds? Research time.  I freaking hate eating seeds  (taste soooo gross) but I can suck it up. 

But another thing that's bothered me for a long time: growing fruits/plants for our consumption has a LOT of parallels to factory farming.  I know growing plants ethically/naturally came first, and mass producing them came second, so of course they would have paralells.  I just thought about it intensely.  Plants are: grown in situations they would not occur in the wild(intensively close, weird climates, different soil types, different natural predators), abused by who knows what, sometimes not too good for the environment (pesticides), completely dominated by industry and receive little respect.......I could replace plants with "chickens" and it would be factory farming!  It's very uncomfortable to me to take something I KNOW to be horrible and wrong for one organism, and then just declare it: "meh it's ok, what other way is there?" for another organism.  (I know organic plants are a little better.  No pesticides and stuff, maybe a bit more respect, but still abuse/intensive rearing!)

I think I just need to move to _________ , and live non-invasively in the forest.  Completely abandon "the man."  (If I leave, though, how can I change this country for the better?  So many things to think about.)

So what do you say when you get the inevitable "but plants are living things too" argument?

Per the original question, my responses tend to be....rude.  Basically because I never ask anyone to justify their diet, so if they offer this up without provocation, I view them as being antagonistic and unnecessarily defensive. 

Response 1: I'd love to be able to understand your rationale, but I just can't seem to get my head that far up my ass!

Response 2:  Ok, lets try a little experiment.  I'll go and rip an orange off a living tree and you go and rip a leg off a living chicken and lets see which one dies screaming in pain.

True enough; looking for "logical" comeback to the silly omnivore statement about "killing plants" is kind of an oxymoron and all kinds of a waste of time, because the person who's arguing isn't TRYING to be "logical"--they're just ranting, or trying to say you're "wrong" in your choice/preference. It's kind of like trying to prove/disprove the existence of God--the person you're talking to usually doesn't want to accept anything as proof, in the first place--they just want to argue.

As I say, I just tell them that what I eat or don't eat has nothing to do with anyone but me. It's a choice. Period.

Viv,
Sorry if this has already been answered to your liking, but i didn't have time to read all of the responses...if you are still wanting an opinion, here is mine:

Yes, plants do still have life and Spirit within them, just like humans and animals. However, plants have less elements or "tattwas" than do animals, which makes them less able to feel pain.

An animal suffers much more than does a plant when its life is taken. We have to do our best, and go on what we do know. We cannot argue the fact that an animal cries in pain and does not want to die.  :'(
Plus, we have to eat something, or we would starve to death. Eating a vegan (or at least vegetarian) diet causes the least amount of suffering, period.

I think your question is a very good one! :)

My boss said this to me a while back and well he's my boss and all that, so I said that I couldn't see the difference between the flesh of meat and the flesh of my thigh and I wouldn't want to eat my thigh and therefore I choose plants.  "Oh" was his response.

Today, he came back with "but we needed meat to grow our brains, therefore, we need meat to maintain it" wtf? I haven't heard the brain argument before and didn't do biology so couldn't really offer an explanation on that but I asked him whether that meant in thousands of years time humans will be a huge continually growing brain with no/very little body/limbs? and was that a really a good reason to continually eat the stuff?  :o was his response.

I also mentioned that we only use a tiny percentage of our brains (some more than others!) and therefore perhaps we needed to eat differently to access its other capabilities  ???

He's just left for lunch after saying that we need to eat meat because our teeth were created to eat meat.  I said I thought it was an intellectual argument but that being the top of the foodchain didn't necessarily mean we had to eat everything and that if we weren't the top of the foodchain how would we feel being raised and grazed in a field/factory, forced into having numerous offspring only to watch them being taken away from us to be slaughtered for something else to eat? More  :o

He's just left for lunch after saying that we need to eat meat because our teeth were created to eat meat.  I said I thought it was an intellectual argument but that being the top of the foodchain didn't necessarily mean we had to eat everything and that if we weren't the top of the foodchain how would we feel being raised and grazed in a field/factory, forced into having numerous offspring only to watch them being taken away from us to be slaughtered for something else to eat? More  :o

Remember that youtube video with the pig doctor? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q

If you don't want to watch the whole thing, they argue that our teeth are more like horses, cows, apes, etc who eat vegetation.  A dog is a carnivore.  My teeth sure don't look like dog teeth.  You?

**Edit- I fixed the link

It was quite a friendly discussion, not a dissing session (well, not on my part anyhow), but I was a bit stumped by some of the things he said.  Thanks guys for the clarification and closeyoureyestosee: no, mine neither