“Do you eat fish?” (My thinking people say they are vegetarian but are actually pescaterian but don’t like saying it for some reason)
“Yea but thats not an animal”
“Hahaha yea it is”
“No it isnt”
“Wait what? … If its not an animal what is it? A tree? Haha”
“It’s a fish!”
“Which is an animal”
“No! An animal is an animal, and a fish is a fish!”
“Fish are animals. Look, we can look it up to check if you want”
“I’m not going to look it up because I know a fish isn’t an animal. I don’t need to look it up!”
“… … I guess I can’t argue with that”
This all took place during pre drinks which is why I thought I was getting fucked with at the start. But I never realised how so many people are walking around blindingly, confidently, unshakeably wrong. She got mad.
This is how I felt as a kid when my peers insisted the thumb is not a finger. Like what are you talking about bro? If I asked before this came up, you’d have said you have ten fingers, not eight.
I’m able to understand conceptually that “meat” doesn’t literally mean any animal’s muscle tissue in every language. Sometimes it’s a more vague concept of a large mammal’s meat and excludes fish, poultry, etc. And that’s okay. But I also hate it.
I’ve never once voiced this thought out loud, but every time someone says something like “I don’t want fish, I want to eat meat” I think “Well, you’re wrong, but OK.” There’s some arbitrary dividing line people assume is logical, but I don’t think it would hold up to serious scrutiny.
Nah, phylogenetically speaking, all descendants of fish must also be fish, by definition. Therefore, “being cold blooded” cannot also be a criterion (not that it would work anyway since tuna are warm blooded, BTW, and nobody would argue tuna aren’t fish).
The “living wholly in water” criterion actually works, though: land-fish (e.g. humans) live inside a bag of water that we carry with us.
Ok, but you are wrong. While biology means animal is a member of animalia, people usually mean an animal that is capable of higher functions, e.g. a dog, sheep etc.
Most fish don’t express themselves in an understandable way. Mussels barely have neurons.
You gotta relax. Any sane human being should have clearly understood where they draw the line.
You also do wrong stuff all the time because it is useful to be wrong.
Nah buddy, we all went to school, and it’s abundantly clear that in modern English, an animal is part of the Kingdom Animalia.
So, the only people (in the English speaking world) who don’t think of insects or fish an animals, either are of a much, much older generation, or didn’t do very well in school.
Most fucking 6-year-olds, in Australia at least, would be able to answer yes to “is a fish an animal?”.
I’ve only ever known Christians to think fish aren’t animals. I’m pretty sure that’s something random that the Vatican decided for bending lent rules or some shit.
at least in my life most people do not have a “reasonably underseood line” where they arbitrarily stop considering animals as animals due to their perceived lack of communication. they have a line where they stop caring about them, but that’s usually about how cute they are, not about how they communicate. if more people understood koalas better they’d be way less popular. they barely have a brain, can’t communicate much, sound absolutely awful…
most people just don’t actually think that much about it. trivia is for the people that do think about things. and it certainly should at least have its answers checked on google.
I’ve only ever known Christians to think fish aren’t animals. I’m pretty sure that’s something random that the Vatican decided for bending lent rules or some shit.
iirc from a class I took 17 years ago (I probably don’t), that is essentially correct. I believe it was to help with getting Scandinavian and/or Baltic countries to convert to Christianity. At least that’s the gist of what I remember.
I think you mean fish don’t express themselves in a way you understand. Some are lone hunters who have to rely on their wits to survive, while some have complex social interactions. Some even pass the mirror test.
I don’t think you should make excuses for why some things deserve life or kindness and others don’t. I think it’s better to just be honest with yourself about your personal biases and say you like dogs too much to hurt them, but that you don’t care as much about fish.
OMG in still confused at this.
“I don’t eat animals”
“Do you eat fish?” (My thinking people say they are vegetarian but are actually pescaterian but don’t like saying it for some reason)
“Yea but thats not an animal”
“Hahaha yea it is”
“No it isnt”
“Wait what? … If its not an animal what is it? A tree? Haha”
“It’s a fish!”
“Which is an animal”
“No! An animal is an animal, and a fish is a fish!”
“Fish are animals. Look, we can look it up to check if you want”
“I’m not going to look it up because I know a fish isn’t an animal. I don’t need to look it up!”
“… … I guess I can’t argue with that”
This all took place during pre drinks which is why I thought I was getting fucked with at the start. But I never realised how so many people are walking around blindingly, confidently, unshakeably wrong. She got mad.
It’s wild to me… And then to get mad? Like “how dare you make me learn something”
Proud ignorance is basically a religion in the US now.
Not the US BTW.
I was just speaking to my own experience here.
This is how I felt as a kid when my peers insisted the thumb is not a finger. Like what are you talking about bro? If I asked before this came up, you’d have said you have ten fingers, not eight.
this is how I feel as a Spanish speaker when English tell me toes aren’t fingers
In English, they aren’t. Toes and fingers are both digits, but not both toes or fingers.
I acknowledge that you are right, however I also acknowledge that I don’t like it and I rather be wrong about it
Language created a thing where Spanish speaker have twice the finger than English speakers.
You can always call them foot fingers in English if you like, although you might get some strange looks.
to differentiate them from hand toes
I’m able to understand conceptually that “meat” doesn’t literally mean any animal’s muscle tissue in every language. Sometimes it’s a more vague concept of a large mammal’s meat and excludes fish, poultry, etc. And that’s okay. But I also hate it.
I’ve never once voiced this thought out loud, but every time someone says something like “I don’t want fish, I want to eat meat” I think “Well, you’re wrong, but OK.” There’s some arbitrary dividing line people assume is logical, but I don’t think it would hold up to serious scrutiny.
My mom often cooks “meat free”. There’s always some sausage in there like Chorizo. Tastes great, but it’s certainly not free of meat.
“reduced meat” doesn’t sound as good
What about “meat lite”?
Are organs other than muscle not meat?
They are kind of right … there is no such thing as a fish.
If I went down that rabbithole I think she would have punched me
Of course there’s such a thing as a fish! A fish is any swimming vertebrate (or its descendant), such as a tuna, or a duck, or a human.
Being cold blooded and living “wholly in water” are also requirements.
Nah, phylogenetically speaking, all descendants of fish must also be fish, by definition. Therefore, “being cold blooded” cannot also be a criterion (not that it would work anyway since tuna are warm blooded, BTW, and nobody would argue tuna aren’t fish).
The “living wholly in water” criterion actually works, though: land-fish (e.g. humans) live inside a bag of water that we carry with us.
You believe in cladistics or you don’t, cowards!
Podcast mentioned.
Still an animal though
No such thing as birds.
Yes there are, they’re a kind of dinosaur
Ok, but you are wrong. While biology means animal is a member of animalia, people usually mean an animal that is capable of higher functions, e.g. a dog, sheep etc.
Most fish don’t express themselves in an understandable way. Mussels barely have neurons.
You gotta relax. Any sane human being should have clearly understood where they draw the line.
You also do wrong stuff all the time because it is useful to be wrong.
Nah buddy, we all went to school, and it’s abundantly clear that in modern English, an animal is part of the Kingdom Animalia.
So, the only people (in the English speaking world) who don’t think of insects or fish an animals, either are of a much, much older generation, or didn’t do very well in school.
Most fucking 6-year-olds, in Australia at least, would be able to answer yes to “is a fish an animal?”.
You’re just jealous fish have more creative abilities than yourself.
I don’t think people “usually” mean that at all. And even if they did, why would I care what people mean by it if it’s wrong?
Yeah, that’s not what animal means.
Mussels aren’t fish.
Now that I think about it “shellfish” a misnomer
Cuttlefish are molluscs. Smart mussels then!
I’ve only ever known Christians to think fish aren’t animals. I’m pretty sure that’s something random that the Vatican decided for bending lent rules or some shit.
at least in my life most people do not have a “reasonably underseood line” where they arbitrarily stop considering animals as animals due to their perceived lack of communication. they have a line where they stop caring about them, but that’s usually about how cute they are, not about how they communicate. if more people understood koalas better they’d be way less popular. they barely have a brain, can’t communicate much, sound absolutely awful…
most people just don’t actually think that much about it. trivia is for the people that do think about things. and it certainly should at least have its answers checked on google.
iirc from a class I took 17 years ago (I probably don’t), that is essentially correct. I believe it was to help with getting Scandinavian and/or Baltic countries to convert to Christianity. At least that’s the gist of what I remember.
Just not the LLM part since it’s often wrong
I don’t understand your nonsense… you must be a fish.
What the fuck are you on about???
You’re somehow both wrong, and useless here. How did you manage to disprove yourself so thoroughly?
I think you mean fish don’t express themselves in a way you understand. Some are lone hunters who have to rely on their wits to survive, while some have complex social interactions. Some even pass the mirror test.
I don’t think you should make excuses for why some things deserve life or kindness and others don’t. I think it’s better to just be honest with yourself about your personal biases and say you like dogs too much to hurt them, but that you don’t care as much about fish.