• wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          What an even more peculiar downvote amount. Even if you (the arbitrary you, not necessarily you in particular) don’t think they’re worthy of being considered beings, it’s not like I said anything offensive or off-topic.

          • kn33@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            I just don’t consider “it” to be depriving animals of “being” status.

            • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 days ago

              You know what…

              I went and looked this up because of this comment. I had never heard of “it” being used like that.

              I’ve only ever heard it being used to specify something specifically as a non-person, or more generally a “being”. So I thought it was literally defining it as a non-being.

              So TIL. I wasn’t trying to be prejudiced, I have literally never heard of “it” being anything other than specifically a non-living object.

              So thanks for the chance to learn something interesting today.