Moral Argument: Meat Eating

Greetings. I have short time to respond, so if I missed some points, I apologize in advance. -- Rebuttals -- 1. My argument was not weak. It basically says that for something to be moral, it does not have to be necessary. It means that although cars are not necessary, they can be morally permissible for usage. Similarly, animals can be morally permissible even though they might not be essential (depends on who you ask). I am not comparing animals to cars, but moral permissibility of one case and another, although they are different, but are the same concerning moral permissibility. 2. Regarding need, some humans do need meat in order to function well, and I said that earlier, too. 3. My answer regarding a dog and a cow is basically the same, except that I wanted to replace dog with cow because I do not want to eat dogs for many reasons, but the argument regarding eating either is the same. My opponent's long argument about why it is not wrong to eat dogs if it is not wrong to eat cows has nothing to do with what I actually said. The principle is the same: eating animals. I merely said cow and not dog because I personally loathe dog-meat, and so does my religion. 4. "However, without a brain, actual neurotransmitters, and emotions, I will not favor the plant's life over an animal's life." I am sorry, but this is a horrible argument. Plants do have emotions. Do you cry out of no reason? No. Plants have emotions, and they are different, but they still feel emotions, pain, fear, etc. Moving on, my opponent said, "This shows that they are talking about a plant SPECIFIC, neurotransmitter-LIKE molecule. These are not fully developed neurotransmitters, like you would find in a bird." Well, the argument for birds is the same, my friend. They have a human-"like" brain. They have a human-"like" blood. It means that although we are very different to birds, the fact that they use their brain in a similar way (hence "like" us), means that we need to give them certain rights, am I correct? Yes. That is what my opponent agrees with. Similarly, why ignore the feelings of plants because they have different ways of feeling emotions? That simply does not hold water. 5. "Given a choice to eat soybeans, which have neurotransmitter-LIKE molecules, and "attributes of intelligent behavior" but no brain, VS. A pig with a fully developed brain, real neurotransmitters, and emotions (not "attributes of intelligent behavior") I am going to eat the soybeans and spare the pig's life, hands down, no contest!" Fine. It means that I - according to my opponent - have the right to eat a starfish? https://7salemanimalkingdom.wikispaces.com... Does anyone see a brain? No. Does science tell us that this animal has a brain? No. Is it permissible to eat it according to my opponent? No. It is an animal. Is its way of feeling pain different to that of most other animals? Yes. Is it similar to how plants perceive pain and emotions? Yes. Does my opponent give the starfish and the plants equal rights of survival? Not at all. Is this moral? Is this what we call moral in such a scientifically prosperous world? -- Conclusion -- I thank my opponent for an interesting debate, and for her proper way of conducting herself and making respectable arguments. Although the plants would not like her, I think that she deserves credit for the conduct, but I do not think that her arguments are strong. Plants have feelings, and plants can feel pain. Eating them is no worse than eating a cow. I am sorry, but that's how it is. I thank my opponent and the readers. Good luck with your future debates!