1.If the very definition is a stumbling block, it's pretty hard to argue that plant "intelligence" is a fact.

2. The overwhelming majority are. The one's that aren't (like carnivorous plants) are a negligible number, that don't really change anything.

3. Kasz is the one who entertains that ideea (he even admitted it), not myself. What I was saying was that throughout history there have  been several single species located at the top of the food chain (so in that regard humans aren't special). Even if humans are "special" (with all the connotations this word has), it doesn't make them more valuable in the echosystem than other lifeforms.

4. You are extending the field with irrelevancies. The food chain reffers strictly to animals and their sources of food. Domesticated animals did not come to be by natural means. They are not adapted to live in nature, but left uncared they'd either adapt, or they'd die (that's the way nature works). Not to mention that the relationship between man and domesticated plants/animals is not one of interdependence and the number of domesticated creatures is just a small portion of Earth's ecosystem, while the entire ecosystem depends on plants to survive.

1.  It's a fact that they're more intelligent than you think. 

2.  Could it not be argued that getting eaten by rabbits and getting eaten by humans are also different places in the food chain? 

3.  Wrong, if you deny Kasz's idea then you cannot compare humans alone to the entire plant kingdom even disregarding (2) -- you must compare the entire plant and animal kingdoms.  Anyway I already told you that our specialness extends far beyond being the global apex predator of the moment.  And being a truly GLOBAL apex predator is already, I think, a unique thing. 

4.  I don't know how you figure we don't live interdependently with our domesticated stuff, we spread them far and wide and they thrive, and then we eat them.  We would suffer if they were gone and they would suffer if we were gone.  And in any case there is no reason to limit the food chain to "natural" ecosystems instead of including human-created ones -- it's just a description of what eats what. 

Oh and not everything depends on plants, oceanic life apparently depends mostly on algae so oceanic life (and terrestrial species that live on it, including humans) would likely survive even if plants disappeared.  This took two minutes on Wikipedia so try checking your facts next time OK? 

Oh boy, look at what I've done. :)

I had written a big ass reply but the pc froze and it got lost. Yay.

Anyway, my point of humans being like other animals was in reference to the argument about the "goodness" of our nature (are we born good and get corrupted, evil and get saved, etc) and what are "us", as in our beings and what determines that.

Yeah, we're comparatively very intelligent and have a huge impact in the world. Yeah, we're special in that sense (I think if you use special too generally then you have to remember not a single entity, but many, can be "special", whatever that means), even if it's a known fact dolphins and mice are the most intelligent lifeforms on Earth.

O_O

What are you smoking?

What, it's true. Do you have no culture? :P

1.  "More intelligent" does not require them to be "intelligent", just like someone can be smarter than a retard without automatically being what you would call "smart". 

2.  I'm inclined to fold this into 3.

3.  You ... Humans are not a "level" of the food chain in the same sense that the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANT KINGDOM is a "level" of the food chain.  That is a ridiculous thing to say.  I thought you were basing that claim on humans being special and intelligent and so awesome we should be considered separate from regular animals.  If not, you need to give a reason why you are comparing one animal species to the plant kingdom, instead of animal kingdom vs. plant kingdom. 

4.  Irrelevant. 

5.  Wikipedia:  "Nearly all algae have photosynthetic machinery ultimately derived from the Cyanobacteria, and so produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis"  BOOM HEADSHOT

"Also, you are aware that water is made up of oxygen, no? (H2O and all that, the oxygen from it isn't produced by algea)."
You ... think ... that fish breathe water by literally SEPARATING THE OXYGEN FROM THE HYDROGEN IN THE WATER MOLECULES???
fail fail fail

1. Has nothing to do with what I last posted.

2-3. Humans ARE a level of the food chain in the same way plants make up an entire level also. You can deny this all you want (because it invalidates what you claim), but it's how it works.

4. Coming from you? Really?

5. My mistake. Fish use thir gills to extract dissolved oxygen from water. The oxygen that is dissolved comes from the air and is produced by... wait for it... PLANTS!!!

Actually... Virtually all the oxygen we breath is manufactured by green plants. A total of three-fourths of the earth’s oxygen supply is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans. Algea cannot support the life located in the sea.

(Note: a plankton is a drifitng organism that inhabits the pelagic zone of the sea, a lake etc.; the phytoplankton is a plant).

1.  Look.  We were arguing about plant intelligence.  I said whether they are intelligent depends on how you define intelligence, and that they were more intelligent than you thought they were.  You said that they weren't, because it was debatable whether what they had was definable as "intelligence".  I don't know how you could mean that EXCEPT to quibble with the semantics of whether I should be using the term "intelligence" to describe what they had more of than you thought. 

3.  If you want to play it that way, basing your argument on the fact that a food chain goes like 1-2-3 corn-cows-humans, then I could easily argue that getting rid of corn would not doom humans (although it would hurt us).  Your extrapolating that into ALL POSSIBLE PLANT LIFE and still only humans on the other end is what makes you silly. 

4.  Yes, really.  The fact that we prop up the corn food chain for our own benefit is irrelevant to the fact that it is still a food chain.  Just because it would collapse if we disappeared doesn't matter.  "Don't deserve" has nothing to do with the matter at hand. 

5.  There are differing opinions on the amount.  I found data indicating that it's 50% of total photosynthesis instead of 75% of total oxygen supply (including absorption and waterfalls/waves/etc.).  And if all the plants disappeared I bet algae would pick up a lot of the slack; of course there would still be a massive animal holocaust.