-Removed-All you are doing is repeating the statement I am questioning. What leads you to that conclusion?
You do have a garden I presume?
A shared garden that I don't take care of, but I have had a garden in the past.
I assume you have dug a plant up at some point in your life?
Yes.
Did you consider the plants feeling, the feelings of its family or those around it?
No. What does that have to do with whether or not it had feelings on the matter?
You seem to be trying to get away with 'its obvious so I don't have to explain'. It isn't obvious. Explain it.
-Removed-I have read it and still don't see an explanation. All I see is repeated question dodging.
You first tried to pretend that I did not see the context in which the first post was made, then you tried 'leading questions' in the hope I would answer your question for you, then you tried to pretend the answer is obvious. Then you just repeated the original statement.
Where is the actual explanation for why we should not get upset if our gardener pulls us all up and replaces us with other flowers? It may seem obvious to you, but it clearly isn't obvious to me. It is obvious to me that a replaced and or killed flower would and should get upset.
-Removed-I understand every word. But it is nothing more than a restatement of the original post that I asked about. It does not contain an explanation at all.
If all we are is plants, then why is there nothing to be upset about if the owner does a bit of gardening?
What about my question do you not understand?