350
Amends (2018-05-23)
(discuss.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
350 points (85.1% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
646 readers
95 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the webcomic known as the Perry Bible Fellowship, created by Nicholas Gurewitch.
https://www.patreon.com/perryfellow
New comics posted whenever they're posted to the site (rarer nowadays but still ongoing). Old comics posted every day until we're caught up
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
No. Having the main cause of death in the world demanding a mere mortal to ask forgiveness for killing to satisfy a basic need is really a tall order.
And why are plants exempt from being asked for forgiveness? It has been shown plants show stress and resonate with their surroundings.
A life is a life.
Do you truly believe that harvesting some potatoes or mowing a lawn is on a similar level to cutting the throat of dogs, pigs, or cows? Like, for real?
Then there's the elefant in the room that animals literally have to eat tons and tons of animal feed each before being slaughtered, so eating meat is the worst choice of food in terms of both animal suffering and plant suffering, which means industrial animal farming is even more fucked up than it already is.
So the implication of this argument can't be the consideration of suffering, the only interpretation that is somewhat coherent is "you can't be perfect, so causing as much violence towards animals as you want is fine." which would be an exceedingly cynical and cruel position to take.
I don't know. Plants are alien to use so we don't think of them the same.
Why make the distinction? Because you can't project human emotion onto a plant? The distinction is arbitrary.
We know that our consciousness and capacity to suffer rely on our brains. Animals have brains with very similar structure, they avoid pain, they have long lasting and complex memories, there are clear signs of emotions (see: dogs), they have personalities, they play, some have emotional attachments to other animals or even humans, some animals show clear signs that they mourn the dead.
Plants don't have brains, and we haven't found any structures that are comparable. We haven't observed any "behavior" that comes close to the capabilities that brains enable either.
There's an enormous difference in the body of evidence. If this distinction is arbitrary to you, you might as well see a stone as your best friend, because they are surely just as conscious as we are.
So because plants don't have central nervous systems that you personally can get attached to, you consider them a lesser life-form?
Because if you don't, then everything you've just said is bullshit.
If something doesn't has a central nervous system and is therefore not sentient, it doesn't make sense to attribute intrinsic ethical value to it. So I guess yes?
Do you really think that turning the machines off when someone is unquestionably brain-dead is murder?
These are truly bizarre things to take issue with.
But I think we both know that it's unlikely that you're deeply concerned about the ethical treatment of grass and corpses...
About as much as I'm deeply concerned about the treatment of livestock:
I do not agree with the current state of Human industrialisation, because at every facet of Human industrialisation it is a destructive, disruptive process that damns the entire Earth in order to make profits for a small handful of individuals.
But the ethical dilemma of eating another life-form for sustenance? No, I deny there exists one.
No.
does chemotaxis count as stress? if so we are fucked.
Yes.
I think it's a joke.
And, like many others, is capable of sparking conversations
Where one point of view might be: This is a joke.
Yes