Buddhism and the Diet Practices view from other religion Since ever i have the half vegetarian diet practices, i have problem below with the society especially with the close friends.
Ques: How to handle the scenario below or how to answer them to make them comfort/understand base on Buddhism or logic. Well, Buddhism is base on logic right?

Plants also has consciousness, and then why do you eat it? -&gt; Hope someone has strong biological knowledge background also able to answer this? Does plant has consciousness? If really yes, how do we handle it?

Some other religions follower may disagree/dis-comfort/against when i avoid meat and we cant enjoy the common meal or so call &quot;good food&quot;. Feedback from them is diet should be balance or simply the Bible or Quran written so they allow to eat it? I felt i am against their God's will. The tough part is when my partner is inviting me to Christ, they will pray for thankfulness for the food. I just can't do it to pray together especially when eating those meat like Sushi with a lot of eggs on top, it has a lot lives inside.

Sometime when i try to explain those animal or fish killed alive is very crude too. i.e. Lobster and it will scream when we boiled it alive. Lobster is best to be boiled alive to serve as food. And then, i will like start losing a friend because when they know the truth and most of the time truth doesn't bring happiness. I know my mistake is the choice of words when explaining about diet. Any guide for this specific topic?
Whether plants have consciouness or to what extent doesn't obviate the fact that persons need sustenance to grow etc. There can be moderation in consumption however, &amp; nonwaste of foodstuffs, lumber etc, which too is efficient from resource utilisation standpoints. Plants do react to light &amp; water &amp; wind etc, yet typically plants are described as nonconscious by current western science, &amp; don't have neural systems, so, sort of depends on how consciousness &amp; volition are being defined.
Consuming animal flesh is perceived as ok by them, so if sharing dinner etc with them such menu items would be reasonably expected. They are being friendly &amp; generous in their way, &amp; it's nice of them to share their time &amp; their resources. If persons select to notconsume animal flesh for whatever reason, good friends might make allowance for that and have some nice things to eat other than animal flesh: bread, potatoes, beans, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. So maybe good to appreciatively consume those items &amp; forego discussions re what the hosts are consuming. They will observe the example of someone notconsuming the animal flesh. And consuming some lobster from a can &amp; which would otherwise be discarded is different from participation of obtaining/ demise of live lobsters. And they may offer thanks for having food &amp; ok health etc, which seems reasonable to observe, and less so thanking for factory farms etc. And to some extent nutritional considerations may be valid. Moderation &amp; nonwaste, &amp; noncontribution(even indirectly) to demise of living things is generally good. To gently show is different from causing sadness or distress to them by comments that they don't understand, and activies which on their part were kindly intentioned. Maybe sidestep such situations is generally good, and each situation may vary.
Nonparticpation in the demise of things, and of such venues, shows by example: and if specifically asked, perhaps could offer a brief explanation, &amp; if presented nicely, might have more good result than more emphatic responses. Good friends would generally be respectful of views differing from their own, so maybe try and use gentle words if commenting on such things, or if replying to a sincere request for information. And perhaps even gentler &amp; briefer if such topic might arise during lunch or at dinner etc.