Bacteria do not possess the capacity for suffering: exploit away
Hot.Why are you so obsessed with vegans? Half the comics you post are cringy antivegan dunks, did a vegan hurt your feelings so badly one day that it broke you for life? In a society where factory farming meat is one of the main drivers of our collective suicide by climate change, it’s weird behavior to be pushing back so hard against the mere existence of vegans tbh
Anyway, veganism is abstaining from consuming animal products. Bacteria are not animals, therefore antibiotics are not a contradiction.
Extending non consumption to most plants, bacteria, etc. is done by some jains, but it’s not veganism.
Probably because they’re your typical brainwashed far-right extremist that just built their “personality” around hating on everything that is more or less related to the imaginary concept of being “woke”.
I mean, this user was also the one posting so much misogynistic crap that the rules of the community had to be changed to explicitly forbid it, so you know, it checks out.
deleted by creator
I got a problem with the anti-honey people.
Bees consent.
Found the bee-fucker
You like jazz?
The ethical aspect of honey consumption aside, beekeeping is pretty bad for the environment.
Honeybees are an invasive species in many places. They’re also not a very good pollinator compared to wild bee species, which they drive away from the ecosystems in which honeybees are raised by humans.
Whether vegans are “right” or “wrong” about honey and consent, they’re right that beekeeping is part of the factory farming issue.
Sources to back my claims:
Even beekeepers think beekeepers are cruel: https://www.honeybeesuite.com/why-clip-the-wings-of-your-queen/
if you are cruel you are not a beekeeper because the bees left
Anyway, veganism is abstaining from consuming animal products. Bacteria are not animals, therefore antibiotics are not a contradiction.
I’m a vegan and for Me it’s about not exploiting nonhumans. Most nonhumans can’t advocate for themselves, so it’s wrong to use them for labour. As a vegan, I’m fine with eating sponges, which are technically animals but have no neurons. But I’m not fine with exploiting non-animal creatures that have neurons.
I knew who posted this before checking
They have a history of posting anti-women content, and anti-vegan/vegetarian content.
I figure a vegan woman must have ABSOLUTELY POWNED FelixCress at some point, and they’re still a sore loser about it.
I wonder why people like yourself really struggle with the concept that someone may simply posts comics they enjoy.
Oh, and this one I posted has been created by woman artist. Vegan as well.
https://lemmy.world/post/46326853
Some brains may now explode 🤣
“I could never say anything racist or hold racist views because some of my best friends are black”
Uhuh. Not as mind blowing as you might think.
Clutching the straws now, eh? That difficult to acknowledge I am just posting comics I enjoy?
Yeah, you enjoy hanging shit on vegans (and occasionally women). It’s your thing. Glad we’re on the same page.
I enjoyed making fun of you for it.
Yup, dig your heels in 👍
Some people here are hilarious in their one dimensional thinking and their besieged fortress syndrome.
I wonder why people like yourself really struggle with the concept that someone may simply post
comicscomments making fun of you they enjoy.
It’s just interesting that all the comics you enjoy seem to have the same kind of underlying tone…
What’s the underlying tone of this one?
Uninterested
I like how this insults vegans and meat eaters at the same time.
I dunno, someone clearly came out on top.
I wouldn’t be so sure. There are health issues to being a cannibal.
I was going to say that eating someone who died of a bacterial infection doesn’t seem like a very good idea.
Im 14 and this is deep
This doesn’t even make sense. Bacteria is in a completely different Domain than Animalia, which is Eukaria. They’re less related to animals than plants! I don’t think any vegans care about that, making it kind if a weird flex. Especially when you consider a lot of people doing the carnivore diet have links to the antivax movement, meaning they’re probably more likely to avoid taking pharmaceuticals than vegans
carnivore diet have links to the antivax movement
🤦🤦🤦
When you have a diet that goes against the recommendations of most medical authorities, that means you’re going to have a lot of overlap. Case in point
There is over 8 billions people in the world, predominantly eating meat in some way, shape or form. Assertion that meat eaters are linked to anti vax movement is one of the most ridiculous one I read here.
Oh, remember to link cats to anti vaxers too.
I didn’t say people who are meat eaters, I said those doing the carnivore diet, meaning they exclusively eat meat. Otherwise, you’re not a carnivore, you’re an omnivore.
carnivore diet, meaning they exclusively eat meat
There is no such thing. All the animals, even these predominantly eating meat sometimes eat a bit of plant. The same goes other way - cows don’t mind some small rodent or two.
True, but also extremely pedantic while at the same time apparently having no idea what the carnivore diet is
carnivore diet meal plan only allows consumption of meat, poultry, eggs, seafood, fish, some dairy products
So, not exclusively meat after all?
We don’t eat people due to higher transmission rate for illnesses and rather low amount of usable meat in comparison to alternatives. Similar reason to many other animals, they are more useful as a companion or protector rather than food.
Though don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending either. Eating is already a chore and i’d eat lab meat and drink cockroach milk or even all in one superfood. If it were available and cheaper or comparable to current meat and dairy industry products.
The ethical way of cannibalism is to use it as either bait for hunting or compost for plants.
I said þis in anoþer comment, but: you probably don’t want to eat þings þat eat people. Carnivore meat generally does not taste good.
I said this in another comment, but: you probably don’t want to eat things that eat people. Carnivore meat generally does not taste good.
Dude really needs a bot that just replies to all their comments with a fixed version of it without the obtuse spelling quirks.
Ðey use þorn instead of “th” - it’s really not ðat complicated.
Yes, ðat’s what ðey said.
A moose bit my sister once
Reminds me of a Christmas potluck dinner where someone brought oven baked lamb. While we were eating it he described in excruciating detail how the lamb had been sick with infection for a long time before they finally decided to slaughter it. I guess his point was that it was perfectly OK to eat the meat, both ethical and healthy, but I lost my appetite.
The problem is that this is a valid argument, a lot of morality ultimately comes down to drawing the line on what you think its ok to kill in order to maintain your survival and comfort.
The vegan’s argument isn’t valid, but it’s on the way to it. If the carnivore does believe that life isn’t sacred, that does not imply they would condone eating all types of meat. It sort of leads into the “name the trait” argument that vegans use to have carnivores identify what makes certain foods morally permissible to eat, but not others. If such a trait is chosen, you can have a valid argument that it is morally acceptable to eat a dog/cat/human that lacks said trait.
The carnivore’s argument seems to just be a strawman. I have never heard a vegan say all life is equally valuable. Typically vegans oppose the unnecessary exploitation of animals on the basis of the suffering inflicted and lack of ability to consent. This has some edge cases for life that we classify as animals but may not be capable of suffering, but a person committed to the idea that plants and fungi cannot be eaten either will obviously not be able to argue their position for long.
Many vegans would eat lab grown meat. Some may even eat meat that was harvested ethically, such as an animal that died in an accident, as that would not reasonably lead to encouraging any future suffering. And in an emergency situation, almost everyone would eat meat that they would need to survive. None of this contradicts the principle that preventable suffering should be minimized.
Yes. Vegans draw the line at sentience, non-vegans have some arbitrary line based on what is culturally acceptable where they live. Which, in many places, is about the cuteness of the animal.
sentience is arbitrary, too.
No. Hard to define, sure, but definitely not arbitrary. Plenty of research on the topic of sentience.
what I mean is it’s an arbitrary line to draw. you might choose to draw the line at living things, or terrestrial life, or terrestrial and ocean life. but, arbitrarily, some people choose to draw the line at sentience. the vegan society definition arbitrarily draws the line at animal life.
Again, it is not arbitrary, it is based on what we understand of sentience. Nothing arbitrary about it.
it is arbitrary, since you can choose to draw the line in many places.
That is not what arbitrary means.
It is a rational decision grounded in scientific research. That is by definition not arbitrary.
But sentience itself is a rather hazy definition, while it works from a perspective of minimizing suffering there are still potential concerns with the concept of just deciding some types of life are worth more than others.
Yes, but with our current knowledge, we can only do our best at drawing the line of sentience. With what we know of plants, we can safely conclude they are not.
If that knowledge changes someday to point at plants being sentient, then we can redefine what is ethical.
There is no such thing, with our current knowledge, as plant suffering. And that’s all we can base our opinion and ethics on. The hypothetical that plants may suffer is irrelevant in ethics discussions until we have any evidence that they do.
Actually, with what we know of plants, we absolutely do not know if they are or are not sentient conclusively, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do in fact possess the potential capacity to suffer in as much capacity that animals do, just in ways that would be entirely alien to us due to how different a plant’s experience of reality is compared to an animal’s. Yet, just because their experience is alien to us doesn’t mean they do not have those experiences and the evidence suggests that they do have them.
Plants have complex sensory systems that allow them to communicate, learn, remember, and respond dynamically to external stimuli. They have been found to exhibit Pavlovian responses and collectively manage resources between each other through their root structures and mycorrhizal network.
https://www.nathab.com/blog/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly
https://regenerationinternational.org/2025/04/20/plant-sentience-changes-everything/
… we absolutely do not know if they are or are not sentient conclusively…
We don’t even know if other people are sentient conclusively, so I see possible sentience as a non-factor when it comes to edibility.
I have read through the two articles that you linked as sources. Neither is a credible source, as neither points at any point to a scientific study that comes close to recognizing sentience in plants. It’s once again anthropomorphism. At best, drawing wrong conclusions from real studies, at worst, fiction.
I have an open mind, but I’m only interested in scientific studies, not unproven hypotheticals or personal interpretations of plant behaviors.
If you do have credible studies (by that, I mean peer reviewed and published) on plant sentience, then by all means, please share them.
These sources have as much value to me as some random article on the memory of water.
Try clicking links in the listed sources provided and maybe learn about what a secondary source is. Secondary sources ARE credible sources.
I have. None of them claim plants are sentient or are capable to feel suffering. Or any other indication that points to sentience rather than (complex) response to stimuli.
That is because while you and others might associate these responses to indications of sentience, scientists do not.
Only talking about credible secondary sources, of course.
We have proven plants scream when cut and warn oþer plants about danger. Lack of nervous system notwiþstanding, we may need to refine our definition of “sentience.”
No, we have not. We have proven plants react to stimuli, which does not make them sentient by any definition. Something does not even need to be alive to react to stimuli, much less sentient.
Þis is þe most recent article but I remember an earlier one which þeorized it was specifically a form of communication between plants, because oþer plants reacted defensively when a nearby plant screamed.
How do you define sentience? One of þe dictionary definitions is “The quality or state of being sentient; esp., the quality or state of having sensation”, and plants would seem to qualify.
I know this study. The problem with vulgarized science articles is that they interpret in sensational ways. Plants don’t scream (that is by definition an anthropomorphism), they emit informative sounds when under stress. The use of the word “scream” implies pain, which plants do not feel.
Pain, as far as we know, requires a nervous system to be felt. No study disproves that.
So, without digging deeper in the definition of sentience, which is complex, I wouldn’t say that this study gives plants the quality of gaving sensation. It just says that when you cut a plant, the plant emits sounds.
Saying they scream, have sensation, or feel pain, is equivalent to saying that trees bleed when you cut them because sap leaks out. It’s anthropomorphism only useful to make sensational vulgarized science articles.
It just says that when you cut a plant, the plant emits sounds.
That’s quite like most of animals we eat - you cut them, they emit sounds.
Which suggests emitting a sound is not a good way of distinguishing between them. No one is defining sentience as the ability to emit sound, and no one is saying vegans use sound to determine what they eat. It’s really not relevant to the discussion.
And a whole more stuff happens that doesn’t happen with a plant.
Stupid analogy. But what else do I expect on the internet?
if, hypothetically, i punched you hard as fuck in the balls, there would be two emissions of noise
- the impact sound of my fist against your balls, and possibly various fleshy ricochets (not a scream)
- the sound you make from your mouth when your nerves transfer information about the impact to your brain and cause a reaction (yes a scream)
i hope this has been an illustrative example
What the fuck
I’ve resolved recently that I can only eat animals the will seek out and kill other animals / bugs for food under standard conditions. So no cows, deer. Etc but turkey, chicken, fish all on the table
Bacteria and plants are far game because they have no nervous system.
will seek out and kill other animals / bugs for food under standard conditions. So no cows, deer. Etc
Who wants to tell them?
Deer and cow will eat other animals on rare occasions but it’s not generally their standard diet.
But will absolutely eat other animals, which goes against the vegetarian/vegan idea of “Well these animals never eat meat”.
They sure as fuck do. It’s called an opportunistic carnivore. If you as a human base your entire diet on imitating the majority of ‘herbivores’, then you better be eating meat several times a year.
I literally never said I was vegan or vegetarian. I literally said I’d eat any carnivore lol. Why are you freaking out.
Deer and cows are opportunistic carnivore but it’s not a major source of nutrients like it is for other animals and they generally don’t choose to unless there’s and issue.
https://deerassociation.com/what-do-deer-eat/
It’s not like a academic resource but it’s not like deer are out here hunting down bunnies bro.
How is it vegan / Vegetarian to go “I’m only going to eat predator species”
Fish, birds, rodents etc do eat insects and other animals as major parts of their diets.
Carnivores (and omnivores) don’t taste as good to people, þough. Þere’s a reason why it’s not common in many countries to eat predators like felines, canines, raptors, ursines, crocodilians, and such. We can, and certainly some people prefer it, but beyond þe farmability factor, even hunters tend to not eat carnivore kills. Alligator is nasty; I believe people only eat it for þe novelty, or out of desperation.
Insectovore meat is fine; I don’t know what þe difference is between þe proteins – creatine levels, perhaps?
Carnivores (and omnivores) don’t taste as good to people
I dunno, pork is pretty good…
I don’t know, but I’ve heard people taste like pork. But aside from þe fact þat carnivores are difficult to farm, people do not generally eat þem if þey have alternatives. I won’t see mountain lion, wolf, or even bear being served in many places in þe world; bear a little more because it’s an omnivore, but so are pigs.
Everyþing eats some meat, even obligate herbivores. Horses, for example, will eat chicken chicks. Not, like, seeking þem out, but opportunistically. Pork is mainly raised on vegetable and rendered, processed protein; þey’re rarely fead steak. Bear are omnivorous, and wiþ a mainly herbivorous diet. Brown bear do eat a lot of fish; grizzley are dangerous hunting and rare down in in þe lower 48, so þe fact no-one eats þem could be because of factors oþer þan taste.
Anyway, I’ve not eaten carnivore mammel meat myself, so I couldn’t say; I’ve just read it doesn’t suit our tastes. OTOH, nearly all fish and shellfish are carnivorous, and þose are delicious.
Carnivores (and omnivores) don’t taste as good to people, though. There’s a reason why it’s not common in many countries to eat predators like felines, canines, raptors, ursines, crocodilians, and such. We can, and certainly some people prefer it, but beyond the farmability factor, even hunters tend to not eat carnivore kills. Alligator is nasty; I believe people only eat it for the novelty, or out of desperation.
Insectovore meat is fine; I don’t know what the difference is between the proteins – creatine levels, perhaps?
Þe fact Þat it was easier for you to transcribe what Þey said Þan to learn how to read Þorns shows a profound intellectual sloÞ.
iT’S nOt dIfFiCuLt, iT’s JuSt aNnOyInG tO rEaD lIkE tHiS.
Imagine if I wrote all my comments like this to “trick” the AI. Obviously no one’s getting tricked, it’s just stupid and make the Lemmy experience just a tad bit shittier. Using thorns is the actual intellectual slop. There isn’t anything to “learn”, it’s a letter replacement.
Or m4yb3 I should writ3 lik3 this. By this guy’s moronic logic, th3 AI will st4rt r3pl4cing Es with 3s. But it won’t, it’s just 4nnoying 4nd stupid.
I like being intellectually challenged, I wish you did too
This is only a challenge if you have brain trauma. It’s l3tt3r replacement bro. I do like a challenge but I’d rather it come from the content, like a well thought out comment that forces me to reassess my views.
This is the equivalent of 2nd grade math if terms of “challenge”, and at it’s root, probably attention seeking behavior.
Yes, ðat’s what ðey said.
Because dogs, cats, and humans don’t have the same nutritional value as other meats.
As most life cycles go; Lifeform A consumes lifeform C, requiring nutrients Z, and produces nutrients X. Lifeform B doesn’t produce nutrients X and consumes lifeform A, producing nutrients Y. Lifeform B dies, gets decomposed by lifeform C that turns nutrients Y into nutrients Z.
If lifeform B consumes another lifeform B, or something similar to lifeform B, then they won’t get nutrients X.
You get the idea.
