this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2025
782 points (97.3% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
35751 readers
4792 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Vegan Bullshit Bingo #22
Plants have feelings too
What part of "Tough shit, I am hungry" made you think I care about the desires of the plant?
Plants communicate.
Those tears you shed when cutting onions is because of a defence mechanism of the onion, the scent you smell when cutting grass is another.
We also know that fungi and trees communicate with eachother as well. They even help eachother gain nutrients.
Yeah, agreed. Life wants to live. Pain and fear is something animals feel so they can get away from potential harm. If you're immobile like a plant, it doesn't make sense to feel pain because you can't run. You don't need to have a brain nor a central nervous system to deal with that.
70% of global crops are fed to animals. Stop eating animals and grow forests instead, to make our planet healthier.
It's closer to 30%.
About 80% of the biomass of the food grown for human consumption is fed to livestock as well. That may be where you're getting that number? That's being insanely generous. What we're talking about is like, corn stalks, squash vines, that kind of shit. The parts of the plants humans cannot physically eat but none the less must produce to feed ourselves.
I'm sure the irony of your bullshit bingo card is completely lost on you but you haven't said anything that strictly speaking could be interpreted as true in this thread.
More greenwashing
I'm surprised how much lemmy lets vegans get away with the greenwashing stuff
Is greenwashing a new term where you dont have to engage with vegans in conversation?
no, they're not. why would you lie about something so easy to find the truth?
What's the real number?
humans consume about 2/3 of global crop calories
Thats closer to the global number, but local numbers can be far worse. If you look at just the US its under 20% of crop calories went to people. The rest went to livestock and machines.
the claim was about global crops. your cherry picking now.
I'm being more specific. I dont think it makes sense to look globally. The west can offset a lot of its bad practices if you include the rest of the world that doesnt.
I understand if you dont care much about this point though.
this is irrelevant to whether it's a lie that 70% of global crops are fed to animals
That doesn't mean they're sentient though, those are just chemical signals
to the extent that they don't understand that they themselves might die, plants don't want too be eaten any more than they want to keep living. the same is true for animals
Not true at all, many animals share the same emotions as humans, who are animals themselves.
they may have emotions, but this doesn't entail that they understand personal mortality.
They understand it the same way we do. Just because we created stories and religion around it doesnt mean we experience it any different. They understand, just like we do, pain is bad and food and water are good. Just because we can write papers about the subject doesnt make the feeling different.
I think you misread "mortality" as "morality"
Not wanting to die/wanting to stay alive is proof animals understand mortality. Its the same impulses that keep humans alive as well.
how do you know what they want?
Because they do what they want. You can see it.
so when they die, it's because they want to die
Now you are being obtuse.
I'm asking for some peer-reviewed paper to support your claim
You won't get one. Where's yours? You didnt bring one proving they dont. Since we both dont really know for sure, we should probably just assume they dont care about dieing, right?
suspend judgement on the claim until there is more evidence.
we can't prove a negative. but you are making the claim that requires that they do understand personal mortality, so it is on you to support that claim
You made the claim that plants 'don't want to be eaten.'
It is on you to support that claim. You can't just turn around and pretend you weren't making your own opinionated claims througut this thread and out the burden of proof on anyone who debates.
plants don't want to be eaten. animals don't want to be eaten. and the reason for both is the same: we don't have proof they understand the concept
You should spend more time trying to comprehend the science of things rather than make the bold statements as if they are true.
Plants have no ability to say whether they want, or don't want to be eaten. They have no ability for adversion. They are blind. They have no neurons, no nervous system, no centralized area to process information. Their 'reactions' to being cut, like the smell of cut grass, are chemical reactions. Not feelings or desires.
Animals, however, have all of this. They are not inherently blind, they have neurons, a nervous system, nociception, a centralized area to process information. Most have amygdala, the ability to process emption, they haveba clear understanding to avoid threats. Why do you think a zebra runs when it sees a lion? Because it thinks it will be cuddled to a nice nap? Given tea?
You are all over the place in various comments cherrypicking between what you want and don't want to argue, and the second you are caught you demand papers proving you are wrong, while you haven't once provided any substantial evidence to back your claims. You keep begging for peer reviewed sources, yet youve provided NONE in any of your responses to anyone.
Good day sir. You don't have the reading comprehension to have a propeet debate with.
all neurological responses are chemical response. you don't know if a plant might experience this like emotions
Thank you for proving you have zero reading comprehension. You are digging your own hole deeper than imagined. Good day child.
two different things
How so? Its the same thing I just said it two ways.
in the 15th century, no one wanted an electric car. does that mean they wanted to stop technological progression?
An electric car is not an emotional state.
I'm explaining that "not wanting" something does not require that you even know of that things existence
if you could point me to the animal cognitive-behaviorist paper that supports this claim, i'd be happy to read it
I think you are making that up
Elephants mourn their dead family members. Is that a bad example?
this is not proof that they understand that they, themselves, might die.
edit: the user who begins responding to me here proffers three studies, none of which actually prove that animals understand that they themselves might die. while they say i haven't read them, its obvious that it is they who have not read them. it is either that, or they are lying, or they are incapable of understanding what these papers say.
there is a lot of abuse from this user, so i don't know if anyone actually wants to go into this thread.
Here ya go. Since you can't research or discover things on your own. Rather you just parade through the comments of this post looking for anyone to show you peer reviewed papers of animals who are studied understanding death.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/items/0d98a4dc-1084-480a-9b66-dc2b994e3636
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6053988/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31713106/
this is not proof crows or elephants understand that they, themselves, might die
it is not evidence at all about the cognitive abilities of turkeys
Thanks for replying in such a time that shows you have not read them. It would take near an hour to glide through the sources sent, you replied in a few minutes, and if done, you would see only two were about crows, one was about elephants, and you provided only a personal opinion in response. No peer review from your side? Shall I post the study of chimpanzees next?
You aren't looking for peer reviewed sources if youre so quick to denounce them. You hold no credibility over the sources sent. Those are from leading experts. Youre a lemmy user. Big difference.
these papers are years-old. I've read them.
they do not consitute proof that any animal understands personal mortality
You've read those word for word, years ago? LMAO yeah 9kay buster. Good luck in your sad sad life.
Edit:
also, your response of the studies are “years old” it is interesting then that they still stand.
That means they’ve survived peer review, replication attempts, and scrutiny. That’s how science works bud, evidence stands until disproven. You didn’t read anything in 60 seconds, and you didn't read it between publish and now. You just don’t like the results.