[quote]You are wrong we are designed to eat both, therefore we should.[/quote] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy [quote]It's not unethical to kill animals as they are a food source.[/quote]So the only basis for your moral framework is whether something is a food source? We can therefore kill anything, and anyone we wish as long as someone, somewhere views them as potential food. And to reduce your logic further, as long as we stand to [i] benefit[/i] from something, there's no way it can be unethical. Right? You can surely understand that ethics are grounded in more than mere self - interest. Indeed, acting ethically [b]requires[/b] a concern for the welfare of others. Otherwise, you are left with egotism. [quote]With your logic it's unethical for Lions to kill and eat antelopes etc. We are after all animals.[/quote]The error here is that lions are not cognitively developed enough to discern right from wrong. This is why we place greater responsibility on an axe murderer than a grizzly bear that escapes from the zoo and mauls a civilian. Clearly, there is an irreducible gulf between the self aware mind of a murderer and the primitive, instinct - driven mind of a bear. [quote]I never said vitamins are unnatural, to supplement something that is a natural food source with vitamins is unnatural. That has noting to do with medicine.[/quote]Then you must have missed my point, which I will reiterate: just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it isn't [i]beneficial[/i] for us. Supplements are beneficial. In fact, most meat eaters are recommended supplements for optimal health as well (i). I drew my comparison to medicine to demonstrate this. The claim that "anything that is unnatural is bad for us" is an empty one and demands evidence to be taken seriously. You must now present some. [quote]You assume to much, it's proven that plants do have a nervous system and a brain of sorts otherwise they couldn't survive.[/quote]Citation needed. [quote]Just because we cannot translate how plants communicate, i.e how they speak, this doesn't mean they cannot feel pain just because they cannot tell us.[/quote]You missed my point again. If we have no evidence, we have no reason to believe it. It's perfectly possible that my chair feels pain whenever I sit in it. Should I stand all the time? The phenomena we observe in plants do not imply consciousness. Plant defense mechanisms and communication can be explained as biological functions, just like how our bodily functions result from a complex network of communication that we are not consciously aware of (ii). And, to be more generous than I need to be, let's assume your theory is true: plants feel pain. A vegan diet would still be more ethical because most of the world's plant crops are fed to livestock (iii and iv). In the interest of reducing plant suffering, a meat based diet would not be the rational option. Of course, such a hypothesis is detached from reality, and from the very real suffering that farm animals experience. This is supported by The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, where in 2012 the world's leading neuroscientists gathered together and signed a declaration confirming animal consciousness and the vast bodies of evidence supporting it (v). I make my ethical choices based on evidence, and an empirical understanding of reality. Until evidence arises suggesting plants suffer (if it ever does) to any or a greater extent than animals, I will continue to eat plant foods instead of animals knowing that it is the ethical thing to do. i: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/5-common-nutrient-deficiencies-and-what-to-do-about-them/#axzz3CaE3ocBh ii: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213122358.htm iii: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html iv: http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm v: http://fcmconference.org/