358
Amends (2018-05-23) (discuss.online)
submitted 8 months ago by m_f@discuss.online to c/pbf@discuss.online
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 103 points 8 months ago

A tiger has every right to kill an antelope as a human has to kill a cow. The real ethical problem for me lies not in the killing of animals, but rather the conditions they live in prior to execution, and the method of execution. There is a way to ethically consume meat, and it is non industrial and requires each person to do the kill so as to not be alienated from the significance of killing an animal to feed oneself.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 34 points 8 months ago

I agree, but a tiger doesn't breed antelope into being, and feed them at the expense of all life on earth just so they can have a nice meal.

If you're hunting, fine. They were eating grass and stuff from the ecosystem.

If you're farming then you're creating massive amounts of waste to generate meat.

[-] Soulg@ani.social 23 points 8 months ago

That's basically the same thing as what they said though.

And let's be honest, if a tiger was capable of farming livestock, it probably would.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] TheFriendlyDickhead@feddit.org 32 points 8 months ago

Maybe in the past humans had to, but thats not the case anymore, as we have more thenen enough different sources.
But thats not even the issue. The issue is the gross amount of meat most people eat, that is not backed up by any kind of "but we allways did it this way"

[-] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I agree with you 100%. It baffles the mind how many chickens we kill so that some fatass can order a bucket of KFC every night.

And you know the thing, most people when shown the conditions of these animals and how abhorrent it is do create a consciousness about it and often try to do things better, though it almost always fails because our society is kinda set up in this way. But I do think that’s one day, maybe a millennia in the future we will look at how we treated animals today with the same sort of apprehension that we think of slavery.

But again my argument is that killing animals is not wrong, that is a right that every animal has. What is wrong is at the scale, and sheer barbarism in the way we do it.

[-] astutemural@midwest.social 11 points 8 months ago

This seems like a lot of work (both practically to do this and mentally to make this argument) when you could just...not eat meat? Seems a lot easier and more ethical.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (80 replies)
[-] Guidy@lemmy.world 69 points 8 months ago

If you're going to go all biblical to make us feel bad then you have to acknowledge how the bible also says all the animals are here for us specifically.

I'm not religious and even I know it says that.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 22 points 8 months ago

Funnily enough there's actually wording in Genesis that could be taken imply humans are just supposed to eat plants, with humans just ruling the animal kingdom and not devouring it.

Feel free to look up Genesis 1:25-31 to see what I mean, though of course translations are..

Very variable.

Regardless, most interpretations agree that what humans absolutely shouldn't be doing is causing a mass extinction that is set to kill just about every complex life form on Earth.

[-] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 11 points 8 months ago

That's really interesting! I'd be curious to see what other translations read as (especially ancient languages, if I were smart enough to read them), but in the NIV translation, you could absolutely read that as a call to eat only plants, and to care for the animals.

It could also be taken another, slightly more terrifying way, too.

If we assume what we're doing is right, farming and killing animals for food, and work backwards from there, the verses say that God made the animals, and gave us dominion over them. If we assume the way we currently treat animals and view them is how that dominion works, then when it goes on to say that God made man in God's image, it could be implied to say that man is to animal as God is to man.

Which could mean God is farming and killing us for God's sustenance. We're nothing but chickens in cages.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] rowdy@lemmy.zip 50 points 8 months ago

ffs Joe, did you kill a fucking elephant?

[-] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 49 points 8 months ago

Yeah I thought this was a carnivore joke, but some of those animals do NOT check out 😨

[-] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 28 points 8 months ago

Could be saying he is liable for ivory trade.

[-] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 19 points 8 months ago

Does the elephant only haunt the people who buy the ivory? The people that killed it? The people that were middlemen and simply profited off the trade? The mules that smuggle it internationally? This is a lot of work for the elephant to be doing after it was already killed for its ivory.

Yes this is overthinking it, but why else are we on the internet? :p

[-] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 9 points 8 months ago

Joe was actually an insurance agent. Most of the animals were killed by vehicles insured by his company.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago

The black in the background are all the bacteria.

[-] relativestranger@feddit.nl 14 points 8 months ago

it's all the bugs from the zapper

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] _lilith@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago

Is it just the ones I personally killed or do you have to say sorry to like five cows for every burger you ate? Also do clams count? because they barely have a nervous system

[-] beemikeoak@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 8 months ago

Do some clams go to hell for dirty thoughts?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

is he like an oil baron, wtf is this shit

[-] CluckN@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

Holy hell he ate an elephant?

[-] Khaliso@slrpnk.net 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't think he ate the japanese soldier either

[-] Soulg@ani.social 11 points 8 months ago

While I am pretty ignorant on Vietnamese culture I don't think they bow like the Japanese

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago

Lots of interesting points at various levels of the comments.

I'd like to offer the idea of, just because we can and have eaten meat as a species, should we continue to?

Why not try something different?

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago

If we are going to try something different, how about start by cutting the religious bit? Easier to worry about the people and animals and ecological present without all the wild focus on necrodestination.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[-] Jumi@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago

There gonna be a lot of mosquitos for me

[-] bampop@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 20 points 8 months ago

Went to war and only killed one dude?

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 24 points 8 months ago

For a Vietnam vet, statistically it was more likely to be his CO than an enemy combatant

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] festus@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago

The average soldier kill rate (of other soldiers) can't exceed 1; if one side does really well with a high average, the other side necessarily did poorly.

[-] festus@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Put it another way - imagine a super bloody war with 1 million soldiers who all killed each other. You have 1 million kills, divided by the 1 million soldiers, creating a 1.0 soldier kill rate.

If any soldiers survived, the rate drops. Obviously you can get a number above 1 if you place civilian deaths in the numerator but not denominator; but in the "ideal" war where civilians are safe it can't exceed 1.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 8 months ago

Thats not unusual i would think. If you get injured in your first encounter then thats a pretty likely outcome.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Aermis@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Seeing this is going with the Christian idea of heaven, you'll have to use Christian beliefs.

Acts 10:9-16.

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 9 points 8 months ago

Were they a butcher?

Taking out those animals lives by themselves is different from using their flesh as product. They are further down the line.

Because otherwise a worm eating my shit would also "contribute" to the death of those animals I've eaten. The shit wouldn't have existed.

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago

Was the butcher going to kill all of those animals if there was nobody to buy them?

A worm does not directly order you to eat food and pay you for the benefit of your refuse.

This line of thinking would make terrible lawyers..

Your honour, my client only ordered the hit, and is therefore not guilty of the crime of first degree murder; it was the hitman - by his own confession. I declare mistrial by further down the linedness and award myself a million bucks.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] droans@midwest.social 8 points 8 months ago

Seems to be a take on The Five People You Meet In Heaven.

In the book, a man named Eddie dies and is sent to Heaven. However, he must first meet five people whose lives were completely altered by him.

The first person the protagonist meets was a man who was turned blue due to silver nitrate. When Eddie was a child, he ran into the road chasing a ball. The man was driving a car and swerved to avoid him. While there was no accident, it caused the man to suffer a heart attack and die.

The point was to show that there is no such thing as coincidence and that your actions can indirectly have an effect on others, even people you never have met.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

~~Ok, but do I wish to do this.~~

Edit, typo:

Ok, but I do wish to do this.

[-] the_elder@midwest.social 8 points 8 months ago

I do. It's about dignity, respect, and our place in the universe. There's only so much you can do in life. I just butchered a few more birds last weekend. You always do your best, it's never easy, but if you want to eat meat as ethically as possible it's best to do it yourself. Thank the animal. Give it dignity and respect in death.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
358 points (85.1% liked)

Perry Bible Fellowship

893 readers
124 users here now

This is a community dedicated to the webcomic known as the Perry Bible Fellowship, created by Nicholas Gurewitch.

https://pbfcomics.com/

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS