[Falling3]

Sure, it's _possible_. But we absolutely no evidence that it happens based on what we know (albeit very little) about the subject. And we have good reasons to believe it's not happening: plants lack the brain structures and processing power believed to be required, no evolutionary advantage, lack of motility.

Philosophically, it fails as an Appeal to Ignorance. Practically, it fails for a few reasons. Many of the plants we consume don't need to be killed and have evolved to expect and depend on our consumption of them. Additionally, the animals we eat need to eat plants. So anyone with a genuine concern for the suffering of plants would immediately forego the consumption of animal products.

[bobby358]

An appeal to ignorance requires to me make an assertion. Saying something is _possible_ is not an assertion.

I concur however, that if one has a genuine concern for plant suffering then only ethical course of action is suicide.

[Falling3]

Yes, _asserting_ something is possible is an assertion. And if your only intention was really to just point out the possibility of it and not suggest it as a likely alternative, you're not adding anything to the conversation. But it seemed to pretty clear be the latter.