I know you don’t really mean it, but I’m going to use your bad faith arguments to point out some things you should know but have probably never thought about.

Let’s accept that you are a fully committed plant’s rights activist. You considered killing yourself out of respect for your plant brother’s experiences, but ultimately you decide that no creature should be obliged to kill itself simply because of its own inherent nature. You cannot help that you need to eat. So what do you do?

You decide that while you have to eat to survive, that doesn’t mean that you can just eat wantonly, whatever and however the urge strikes you, because there are these serious consequences to your plant friends. You look for the way of life that minimizes the number of plants that you have to kill. Easy, you think, you’ll just eat animals!

Until you realize, those animals eat plants. Those animals ate WAY more plants than you would have if you hadn’t eaten any animals. Oh. Shit. The more animals you eat, the more of your plant sisters you are killing. You realize that your ethical convictions demand that you instead eat only plants, and only as many as you need to survive. Because that is the only solution to this ethical quandary.

But of course, in real life, you are not actually concerned with plant’s rights. It was just a ruse you were pulling. You did not go down this train of thought to its logical conclusion. These are not issues that you have spent years and years thinking about. Rather, like most people, you have been trained to not think about them. You’re not engaging with intellectual honesty, you have begun to attempt to frustrate meaningful discussion. I’m giving you a lot of grace here because I don’t think you realize you did it, and I’d like to give you a chance to see it.