A tiger has every right to kill an antelope as a human has to kill a cow. The real ethical problem for me lies not in the killing of animals, but rather the conditions they live in prior to execution, and the method of execution. There is a way to ethically consume meat, and it is non industrial and requires each person to do the kill so as to not be alienated from the significance of killing an animal to feed oneself.
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
396 points (85.5% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
872 readers
54 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I agree, but a tiger doesn't breed antelope into being, and feed them at the expense of all life on earth just so they can have a nice meal.
If you're hunting, fine. They were eating grass and stuff from the ecosystem.
If you're farming then you're creating massive amounts of waste to generate meat.
That's basically the same thing as what they said though.
And let's be honest, if a tiger was capable of farming livestock, it probably would.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Maybe in the past humans had to, but thats not the case anymore, as we have more thenen enough different sources.
But thats not even the issue. The issue is the gross amount of meat most people eat, that is not backed up by any kind of "but we allways did it this way"
I agree with you 100%. It baffles the mind how many chickens we kill so that some fatass can order a bucket of KFC every night.
And you know the thing, most people when shown the conditions of these animals and how abhorrent it is do create a consciousness about it and often try to do things better, though it almost always fails because our society is kinda set up in this way. But I do think thatβs one day, maybe a millennia in the future we will look at how we treated animals today with the same sort of apprehension that we think of slavery.
But again my argument is that killing animals is not wrong, that is a right that every animal has. What is wrong is at the scale, and sheer barbarism in the way we do it.
This seems like a lot of work (both practically to do this and mentally to make this argument) when you could just...not eat meat? Seems a lot easier and more ethical.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(81 replies)
If you're going to go all biblical to make us feel bad then you have to acknowledge how the bible also says all the animals are here for us specifically.
I'm not religious and even I know it says that.
Funnily enough there's actually wording in Genesis that could be taken imply humans are just supposed to eat plants, with humans just ruling the animal kingdom and not devouring it.
Feel free to look up Genesis 1:25-31 to see what I mean, though of course translations are..
Very variable.
Regardless, most interpretations agree that what humans absolutely shouldn't be doing is causing a mass extinction that is set to kill just about every complex life form on Earth.
That's really interesting! I'd be curious to see what other translations read as (especially ancient languages, if I were smart enough to read them), but in the NIV translation, you could absolutely read that as a call to eat only plants, and to care for the animals.
It could also be taken another, slightly more terrifying way, too.
If we assume what we're doing is right, farming and killing animals for food, and work backwards from there, the verses say that God made the animals, and gave us dominion over them. If we assume the way we currently treat animals and view them is how that dominion works, then when it goes on to say that God made man in God's image, it could be implied to say that man is to animal as God is to man.
Which could mean God is farming and killing us for God's sustenance. We're nothing but chickens in cages.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
ffs Joe, did you kill a fucking elephant?
Yeah I thought this was a carnivore joke, but some of those animals do NOT check out π¨
Could be saying he is liable for ivory trade.
Does the elephant only haunt the people who buy the ivory? The people that killed it? The people that were middlemen and simply profited off the trade? The mules that smuggle it internationally? This is a lot of work for the elephant to be doing after it was already killed for its ivory.
Yes this is overthinking it, but why else are we on the internet? :p
Joe was actually an insurance agent. Most of the animals were killed by vehicles insured by his company.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is it just the ones I personally killed or do you have to say sorry to like five cows for every burger you ate? Also do clams count? because they barely have a nervous system
Do some clams go to hell for dirty thoughts?
load more comments
(4 replies)
The black in the background are all the bacteria.
is he like an oil baron, wtf is this shit
Holy hell he ate an elephant?
I don't think he ate the japanese soldier either
While I am pretty ignorant on Vietnamese culture I don't think they bow like the Japanese
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lots of interesting points at various levels of the comments.
I'd like to offer the idea of, just because we can and have eaten meat as a species, should we continue to?
Why not try something different?
If we are going to try something different, how about start by cutting the religious bit? Easier to worry about the people and animals and ecological present without all the wild focus on necrodestination.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(22 replies)
Went to war and only killed one dude?
For a Vietnam vet, statistically it was more likely to be his CO than an enemy combatant
load more comments
(4 replies)
Thats not unusual i would think. If you get injured in your first encounter then thats a pretty likely outcome.
The average soldier kill rate (of other soldiers) can't exceed 1; if one side does really well with a high average, the other side necessarily did poorly.
Put it another way - imagine a super bloody war with 1 million soldiers who all killed each other. You have 1 million kills, divided by the 1 million soldiers, creating a 1.0 soldier kill rate.
If any soldiers survived, the rate drops. Obviously you can get a number above 1 if you place civilian deaths in the numerator but not denominator; but in the "ideal" war where civilians are safe it can't exceed 1.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Seeing this is going with the Christian idea of heaven, you'll have to use Christian beliefs.
Acts 10:9-16.
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, βGet up, Peter. Kill and eat.β
14 βSurely not, Lord!β Peter replied. βI have never eaten anything impure or unclean.β
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, βDo not call anything impure that God has made clean.β
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next βΊ