• wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 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
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

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

        • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 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.