36
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
36 points (71.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43822 readers
871 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm probably being a little facetious here, I think I kind of get what you meant, but isn't the whole reason "to sell it to someone who wants to eat it" regardless of which one was killed?
Like, if it was it was road kill (?) or something. Maybe a conservationist came into the possession of a freshly dead sturgeon and wants OP to cook it. I dunno, I've had similar things happen, I posted about the time I got to try kopi luwak here.
Otherwise, no, it's farmed or you're SOL. Eating endangered animals is generally agreed to be a dick move.
I keep running into sturgeons in my car. Hate when that happens.
Hmm, I bet that would mess up your tires. They have tooth-like scales IIRC. It could be for research or some other kind of accident, I guess. The point being that it wasn't a kill for food purposes.
Lemmy punishes being inexact so much ("ACKTUALLY") I have to admit I'm a bit butthurt people are coming after me for mentioning the only edge case.
I'm not sure I understand. I'm speaking specifically about this particular situation you mentioned : what's the difference in terms of legitimacy between the two kills, if both were made to be sold to feed someone else?
I understand the legal aspect, like endangered species protections, etc, but that's another topic entirely. Or is it actually not and you actually meant "legality"?
The point would be it was killed for unrelated reasons, and then is made available post-mortem for consumption somehow. And verifiably so!
As for the ethics:
I feel like that sums it up pretty well. I don't know OP but I'd bet money that they would agree it's to be avoided, so that's the light I answered the question in.
If this is a vegetarian thing, I did make a mention of that in my OP. Dispensing a lecture instead of answering the spirit of the question would have been unhelpful.