You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition:
Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
So yes, trolling. I’m not gonna engage with that because someone is so edgy and tight with the term “stealing” and any deviation from a hyperbolic perspective is unacceptable, so have a good day.
I merely disagree with OP’s view where in this case “stealing” of chloroplast from another organism and then proceed to use that chloroplast in the exact way the cell is used for, and which said organism did not produce, you’re the one insist that we technically photosynthesis when eating salad. You drag me into your semantic argument. Big difference.
So if by troll you mean someone that riled up others then yep, i’m a troll for getting you so upset with the word use, you just bite the straight hook with no bait and does not let go.
I said your semantic argument, not denying it’s a semantic argument, i’m having an unpleasant back and forth with you if you haven’t noticed. Yours is more stupid.
I can’t believe this drag on for multiple days for a word “steal”.
It’s not mine. Literally look back through this comment thread.
The person you replied to said “steal” was a poor choice of words and you piped up to say it wasn’t. That was the moment you entered into a semantic argument.
Mine with OP ended just like that, a disagreement but we both agree to disagree, with yours this drag on and on and we’re basically flinging shit at each other without advancing any of the argument, because you insist eating salad made us capable of photosynthesis if the slug eating algae and stealing their chloroplast then enable them to photosynthesis. Get a life, bro, because i’m blocking you.
It’s truly a gift to see my original comment, which boils down to “huh, odd choice of words,” defended with such eloquence. The internet may not be paradise but I ask you, where else could this meeting of the minds have occurred?
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition: Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
So yes, trolling. I’m not gonna engage with that because someone is so edgy and tight with the term “stealing” and any deviation from a hyperbolic perspective is unacceptable, so have a good day.
Lol, you can’t admit to losing an argument, can you.
Ohh i didn’t know it’s a competition.
You got into a semantic argument… and then started laying down incoherent definitions that you made up on the spot.
Yes, I agree, you are absolutely trolling.
I merely disagree with OP’s view where in this case “stealing” of chloroplast from another organism and then proceed to use that chloroplast in the exact way the cell is used for, and which said organism did not produce, you’re the one insist that we technically photosynthesis when eating salad. You drag me into your semantic argument. Big difference.
So if by troll you mean someone that riled up others then yep, i’m a troll for getting you so upset with the word use, you just bite the straight hook with no bait and does not let go.
Your disagreement with op about the definition of stealing IS the semantic argument. That’s what a semantic argument is.
I said your semantic argument, not denying it’s a semantic argument, i’m having an unpleasant back and forth with you if you haven’t noticed. Yours is more stupid.
I can’t believe this drag on for multiple days for a word “steal”.
It’s not mine. Literally look back through this comment thread.
The person you replied to said “steal” was a poor choice of words and you piped up to say it wasn’t. That was the moment you entered into a semantic argument.
https://lemmy.zip/comment/23037140
This not yours?
Mine with OP ended just like that, a disagreement but we both agree to disagree, with yours this drag on and on and we’re basically flinging shit at each other without advancing any of the argument, because you insist eating salad made us capable of photosynthesis if the slug eating algae and stealing their chloroplast then enable them to photosynthesis. Get a life, bro, because i’m blocking you.
It’s truly a gift to see my original comment, which boils down to “huh, odd choice of words,” defended with such eloquence. The internet may not be paradise but I ask you, where else could this meeting of the minds have occurred?