this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
359 points (85.0% liked)

Perry Bible Fellowship

645 readers
56 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 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

your position requires that plants aren’t sentient

This is the claim I'm asking you to elaborate on, it was not part of a previous conversation.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

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

Do you, as a non-hypocritical person with certain principles, think the exploitation of sentient beings is unethical and should be boycotted?

funny, then, that the comment below is excusing the hypothetical exploitation of sentient beings, so long as it is to a somewhat lesser extent.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

🀣

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: 🀣🀣