this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
359 points (85.0% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
645 readers
59 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
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
edit:
if this thread is to be linked, I would hope that basic reading comprehension skills would be sufficient for anyone to see what has happened. weirdly, the edit to the comment below introduced an entirely separate argument, moving the goal posts. but surely the reader can remember when it was said
funny, then, that the comment below is excusing the hypothetical exploitation of sentient beings, so long as it is to a somewhat lesser extent.
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.
Edit 2: π€£π€£