Permanently Deleted

  • lily33@lemm.ee
    ·
    5 months ago

    Not three same person, but the demarcation between what should be OK to eat, and what - not - they baked most sense to me, is the capacity to experience pain or emotions.

    So I see no substantial moral difference between eating plants or invertebrates, for example - neither can feel harm.

    That said, fish and chicken can experience pain or emotions the same as cows and pigs.

    • dat_math [they/them]
      ·
      5 months ago

      So I see no substantial moral difference between eating plants or invertebrates, for example - neither can feel harm.

      octopodes have capacity to feel pain and likely experience emotion

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6K1kVUct24

      • lily33@lemm.ee
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        OK. They have a brain to feel them with. If you're objecting to imprecise terminology here, I'll give you the point, but I don't think that affects my basic point any (I'm not a biologist, I meant insects and the like - though don't take that as definitive either; maybe someone knows an insect with a brain, too).

        • dat_math [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Insects also have brains. Some arachnids have the capacity for fairly complex cognition (e.g., the portia spider's hunting behaviors, jumping spiders communicate with eachother and in my opinion, engage in playful behavior).

          The issue isn't with your terminology, but rather with what it reveals about the imprecision/inconsistency of your reasoning on these matters.

          If you're going to draw a line at eating beings that can feel the harm done to them by eating, it might serve you to explore that boundary more thoroughly.