Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.
My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.
The only true way is to live exclusively off of mushrooms or mushroom fed livestock. That way NO plants will be harmed. (The fungus deserves it, so no moral compunctions)
I always remember that plant in Japan that was hooked up to a computer that would get sad if no one talked to it, but will be full of excited energy anytime someone spoke to it.
Now I apologise to a tree if I need to take a leak on it.
my comment was about the word “creature” which implies a creator. It’s understandable that it may be difficult to classify living beings if the criteria is “behavior”
I don’t think anyone other than you thinks the word “creature” implies a creator, so you making that distinction really only gives power to creationists rather than taking it away.
Moreover, even if it does come from creatura, the argument can easily be made that creatures beget (create) other creatures. It seems a very silly and tenuous thing to suddenly muddle a conversation over.
“beget” doesn’t mean “create”.
i don’t muddle the conversation. Creationism is related fundamentally to any conversation about vegetarianism, veganism, speciesism &c.
plants are not “creatures”, neither are animals.<br> both are indeed living evolutures ;)
Do you often write in HTML?
there was something wrong about formatting. Without the HTML code my lines were all huddled into one long line 🤷
How would you define creature?
The word creature is theistic. The person you’re responding to is being pedantic, but isn’t wrong.
thank you :)
Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.
My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.
deleted by creator
A person who eats meat is responsible for more plant consumption than a person who eats vegan. Livestock don’t live on sunshine and air you know.
The only true way is to live exclusively off of mushrooms or mushroom fed livestock. That way NO plants will be harmed. (The fungus deserves it, so no moral compunctions)
I always remember that plant in Japan that was hooked up to a computer that would get sad if no one talked to it, but will be full of excited energy anytime someone spoke to it.
Now I apologise to a tree if I need to take a leak on it.
do you know what anthropomorphism is?
Yeah I do, I anthropomorphise everything lol, I apologized to my door for bumping it with my wood trollie yesterday.
It might not have feelings, but I do and I felt bad.
my comment was about the word “creature” which implies a creator. It’s understandable that it may be difficult to classify living beings if the criteria is “behavior”
I don’t think anyone other than you thinks the word “creature” implies a creator, so you making that distinction really only gives power to creationists rather than taking it away.
Moreover, even if it does come from creatura, the argument can easily be made that creatures beget (create) other creatures. It seems a very silly and tenuous thing to suddenly muddle a conversation over.
how do you know what everyone thinks?
“beget” doesn’t mean “create”. i don’t muddle the conversation. Creationism is related fundamentally to any conversation about vegetarianism, veganism, speciesism &c.
Ask Abraham. He knows.