I can completely understand your reaction, never having witnesses what I am talking about. In my case, I see animals that choose--and I do believe based on my personal experiences that they are choosing--to follow the person who is going to transform them into food. There is no crying, there is no coercing, there is trust between two beings. Honestly, I would be skeptical myself, had I not been a part of it.
Just last week, one of our pigs was slaughtered, this weekend the other one will be. It is done out in the open, and there is no crying in horror, because the two people that are doing it are doing it with love. They have an intimate relationship with the animal, caring for it for more than a year, as do I, since I frequently go visit and and spend time with this magnificent creature.
And in this same way, I feel that plants also give themselves. Talking about vegetarianism as if it is better than eating animals negates the argument about plant intelligence. If plants and animals are sentient, then how can we believe that there is a difference eating one over the other?
You are talking something mystical and out of this world. Perhaps, intense love for food may blind someone to the sufferings & plight of others, I dunno! But I know there may be exceptions everywhere ...may be one animal didn't cry in horror (though I doubt), but I feel this couldn't be generalized to every animal you have got.
Regarding your query:
I'd request you to read the last section of the post once again:
"So Why Should We Not Kill Animals Instead Of Plants?"
I read your post, but then in your previous comment you state that eating animals is eating beyond our needs because we can get everything we need from plants. You contradict yourself between article and comment, hence why I ask the question. Just like you say that every saint is a vegetarian (which I disagree with, but not important enough to argue about) as a reason why we should not eat animals, but then start this last comment saying that my comment mixes science and mysticism. Which way do you want it, mixed spirituality and science or separate. It is your article, so you can choose, but you can't use both yourself then call out the contributors for using both, as well. :)
My comments are based on science and spirituality both personally applied in the physical. I happen to be both a scientist in this field and live in a spiritual community rooted in action. Where does your base come from?
Sorry, didn't get you.
May I request you to quote where I contadict myself?
My comment referred to your entire article. In it, you talk about plant intelligence, then basically conclude that you should not eat meat because animals are sentient and feel pain. It is a contradiction.
Plant Blindness is something most humans struggle with. The thought that everything in our world is actually "alive", therefore the criteria we have been using most of our lives to make choices are no longer valid is a hard thing to assimilate. For most, they can't make the leap, preferring to convey some kind of higher meaning to one type of being (in most cases animals because it is easier to relate to them) over another. Aristotle set this into motion over 2300 years ago, and his view stands even in the face of a growing body of science that his assertion is wrong. We were born into a world with plants, therefore they are part of the background, a position that is much more comfortable for us to leave them in given just how much we rely on them. I mean, is humanity ready to give up its position at the top of the food chain?