Comment on I just đ them and think they're neat.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip â¨14⊠â¨hours⊠agoTo put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
Thatâs a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, itâs still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know whatâs up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.
Windex007@lemmy.world â¨4⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Youâre the one who invented a definition of âtheftâ 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 youâve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
Iâm going to drive now directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of âstealingâ (which is promise you, im not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand it) is just bad.
Counter Definition: Eating isnât 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 isnât technically accurate.
mayorchid@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Itâs truly a gift to see my original comment, which boils down to âhuh, odd choice of words,â defended with such eloquence. The internet may not be paradise but I ask you, where else could this meeting of the minds have occurred?