Regulations that ensure my food is safe to eat and a government preventing me from eating a type of food even if it is safe to eat are two entirely different things and I’m pretty sure you knew that before trying to make a witty false equivalence
OK now you’re just arguing in bad faith. You said the other guys example wasn’t equitable because it’s conflating banning a material with controlling quality. So I asked you the same concept but with a proper example and instead of responding with a coherent argument, you went with ridicule.
Go play in traffic.
The point being? That it’s fine to set government regulation to protect species from being wiped out and that somehow doesn’t transfer to it being fine to regulate beef or other meats as we see them negatively affecting a vast swath of ecosystems including many of those endangered species? The harm has to be to the species being regulated and not from the species?
Are endangered species not also safe to eat generally?
There’s a difference between a government regulating against the consumption of endangered animals and banning the consumption of beef, chicken and pork so only insects are allowed to be consumed. You took my original comment extremely literally seemingly on purpose to try and make witty false equivalences and gotchas
Shrimp and lobsters are decapods which belong in the arthropod group right alongside all of our insects. They are water insects by definition.
It’s not at all like saying a whale is a fish because while they are both vertebrates, they split much sooner than arthropods do, and they do not share as many similar characteristics.
It would be like saying a shark is a fish (which it is).
Also insects are hexapods which belong to the class insecta and appeared roughly 411 million years ago. Shrimp and lobsters are decapods which predate insects. I don’t know who started this meme about shrimp and lobsters being insects but it is factually incorrect. They’re not the same thing just because they belong in the same massive phylum
Well whales and giraffes are both mammals, and since they’re classed together due to a common ancestor it’s fair to say they’re related and you could group them together.
Just like how decapods and insects are classed with hexapods under crustacea, effectively making them related due to a common ancestor.
So you could say giraffes (or artiodactylans) are proto whales (or cetaceans) much like you could say crustaceans are proto insects. Or insects of the sea.
Hell friggen no. I’m also not going to let a government dictate what I eat. Screw the law
Does that include food safety regulations?
That’s not dictating what he chooses to eat you nimrod, that’s dictating what the manufacturers are allowed to put into food
If you can’t see the difference in that you have no business trying these infantile zingers in a public forum
Regulations that ensure my food is safe to eat and a government preventing me from eating a type of food even if it is safe to eat are two entirely different things and I’m pretty sure you knew that before trying to make a witty false equivalence
Would you eat endangered species if available?
That’s a government regulation that controls what you can consume that has nothing to do with food safety.
Person 1: “Honey, we can’t eat chicken, beef or pork, we’ve only got crickets since the government banned all meat except for crickets”
Person 2: “Damnit, I wish the government stopped dictating what we eat even if the food we want to eat is safe for us to eat”
Person 3: “SO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME YOU’D EAT AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?”
OK now you’re just arguing in bad faith. You said the other guys example wasn’t equitable because it’s conflating banning a material with controlling quality. So I asked you the same concept but with a proper example and instead of responding with a coherent argument, you went with ridicule. Go play in traffic.
You were deliberately missing the point.
Reported. Have a nice day
The point being? That it’s fine to set government regulation to protect species from being wiped out and that somehow doesn’t transfer to it being fine to regulate beef or other meats as we see them negatively affecting a vast swath of ecosystems including many of those endangered species? The harm has to be to the species being regulated and not from the species?
Are endangered species not also safe to eat generally?
There’s a difference between a government regulating against the consumption of endangered animals and banning the consumption of beef, chicken and pork so only insects are allowed to be consumed. You took my original comment extremely literally seemingly on purpose to try and make witty false equivalences and gotchas
More shrimp and lobster for me.
Shrimp and lobsters are crustaceans, not insects. It’s like saying a whale is a fish
Shrimp and lobsters are decapods which belong in the arthropod group right alongside all of our insects. They are water insects by definition.
It’s not at all like saying a whale is a fish because while they are both vertebrates, they split much sooner than arthropods do, and they do not share as many similar characteristics.
It would be like saying a shark is a fish (which it is).
Also insects are hexapods which belong to the class insecta and appeared roughly 411 million years ago. Shrimp and lobsters are decapods which predate insects. I don’t know who started this meme about shrimp and lobsters being insects but it is factually incorrect. They’re not the same thing just because they belong in the same massive phylum
They’re all crustaceans.
That’s like saying whales are giraffes because they’re in the order artiodactyla
Well whales and giraffes are both mammals, and since they’re classed together due to a common ancestor it’s fair to say they’re related and you could group them together.
Just like how decapods and insects are classed with hexapods under crustacea, effectively making them related due to a common ancestor.
So you could say giraffes (or artiodactylans) are proto whales (or cetaceans) much like you could say crustaceans are proto insects. Or insects of the sea.