this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
359 points (85.0% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
645 readers
125 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I just don't care for moral grandstanding.
Ok forget about the vegans, bunch of preachy, sanctimonious, self-centered assholes every single one. Do you, as a non-hypocritical person with certain principles, think the exploitation of sentient beings is unethical and should be boycotted?
No- I know what you're trying to go for, because it's the same argument every Vegan thinks is their coup de grace. I, as a thinking person, am able to kill and use other animals to eat, for clothing, for protection, or for whatever else I need. I do not believe it is more or less moral to be vegan than it is to eat meat or use animal products. Are you able to prove that the plants you "exploit" aren't sentient? No. Because sentience and life are not easily defined terms. Anyways, have a good rest of your life.
Dont have to, already done:
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive/resources
this isn't proof plants aren't sentient
it is but it's such a tedious point to argue I'm just not gonna. If you truly believe that plants are sentient and that picking a salad is the same as slaughtering a newborn (and lets be real here, you don't) then you should still go vegan to minimize death of sentient life. Or starve, either way is fine by me.
I didn't say what I believe. I said what you provided is not and cannot be proof that plants aren't sentient. no such proof can exist.
It is within the context of this conversation. Words can change their meaning depending on context and no one definition will hold true always. If you actually cared about the topic within the context of a formal debate you would have challenged the other person for asserting a claim and then asking for proof of the contrary. But you're just a pedant.
the other person seems to have been making the same point that I am, and in pointing out that what you provided is not proof to the contrary, I am engaging in the discussion at the same level.
try not lying about whether you're providing proof.
No they haven't, they asserted that it is no less moral to eat meat than to be vegan. In the case that animals are sentient but plants are not, clearly eating only plants is the more moral choice. Therefore a necessary condition for their assertion is that both animals and plants are not sentient or that both are. Their call for proof that plants aren't sentient suggests that they meant the latter.
Since they made an assertion requiring the assumption that plants are sentient and then asked for proof that they are not, my statement that they made a claim and asked proof of the contrary is correct. Which is different from the statement you made, that my proof is not actually one.
I'm not engaging with this {π€|π©}π-ass bullshit further. We are supposed to make these formally correct arguments in a polite and restrained manner while the bloodmouths make snide remarks and jokes, the stupidest hypotheticals imaginable and overall just be gross? Fuck that.
anyone can read what they wrote, and see that they did not claim plants are sentient. they said you can't prove they aren't. which is the same thing I said.
Engage with what I wrote about how their statement requires it as an assumption and dont just hide behind "thats not literally what they said"!! They required the claim as an assumption, even if they didn't outright state it. They used it to assert that eating meat and plants is morally the same thing and dismiss my earlier point by saying that I couldn't prove their (unstated, but necessary) assumption is incorrect.
Don't just try to silence one side with your pedantry.
your position requires that plants aren't sentient, but their position only requires that they cannot be proven not to be sentient. it is you who is making the assumption.
How so?
surely you are skilled enough at logic and reasoning to read what was written and see that I'm just describing the conversation above. if not, I don't think it's something I can explain to you.
This is the claim I'm asking you to elaborate on, it was not part of a previous conversation.
have a nice day
π€£
edit: since I'll be referencing this conversation should I see this user again uphold a double standard in debate I'll state this:
If by "my position" they meant veganism, it doesn't require that plants aren't sentient. It's a sufficient condition to show veganism is the morally superior option (and imo rather obviously true, if annoying formally prove because you have to get settled on formal definitions first). However, given that plants and animals are both sentient the argument (a variation of which is presented in the text which started this whole chain)
"Meat 'production' requires a multiple of plant by mass, not to mention how many many many more plants have to 'die' by the numbers to feed one animal before you murder it."
also implies that veganism is the morally superior option.
If they meant a different position, well they didn't elaborate, this is my best guess.
So it's okay to cause pain to plants, because they don't react to the stimuli the same way as animals? That's what your link claims. Sounds like y'all are on a foundation of salt and sand. Plants are sentient, just not sapient.
Kicking a tree is the same as kicking a horse got it.
no one said that
They dont have a nervous system you dumb fuck and even if they feel pain
Neat, so even if I'm right- you wanna call names. I disagree that it makes a pro-vegan argument, it just makes vegans look equally as cruel, and intellectually dishonest on top of it.
nah dude you started with the names and rudeness I just responded in kind, dont act all high and mighty now. And if you actually believed that killing a newborn is the same as picking a salad you would do your utmost to make sure your consumption minimizes plant death which again would mean a vegan diet since meat "production" requires a multiple of plant by mass, not to mention how many many many more plants have to "die" by the numbers to feed one animal before you murder it.
Where did I call you a name? Man, you're now arguing against things I never said. Not beating the allegations of vegans being preachy, holier-than-thou ideologues.
Youve been calling it "moral grandstanding", "self-serving ideologues" basically at every turn youve been condescending and snide, so don't act all shocked when some of it is returned.
I'm not acting surprised- I know how you people are. I never once called you a name. If you felt insulted by what I said, maybe it's time to take a look inward. Sorry you felt called out.
You called out vegans, I am vegan, I felt called out π€£ Introspection over
I called out the MAJORITY of vegans. If you happen to fall in to the group of losers that use it as a way to feel special, that isn't my fault. You just happen to be in a group of people that like to feel morally superior to others.
You're right! So let's see what I said:
Damn, you're dumb.
Says the one who claimed plants feel PAIN!
Who are you trying to fool??
Edit: why am I still arguing with some guy who claims he believes picking a salad and killing a newborn are the same thing and then goes and calls others hypocrites.
I'm not trying to fool anyone- you're just mad that you fall in with the people that want to be better than everyone else, but fail at every turn.
That edit is funny- considering you set out to prove that vegans aren't sanctimonious, self-serving losers, and all you've done is preach and try to show how elevated your ideology is.
No, I've set out to prove that omnis have nothing but some stupid hypotheticals ("what if plants are sentient??") and ad hominems and I think I've shown this in your case quite thoroughly. Additionally the reddit thing of you constantly reinterpreting of what you said is just a bonus.
Well you failed there, too.
Weird how you've convinced yourself of something that did not happen.