Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way for something im actively digesting.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
To put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
That’s a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, it’s still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know what’s up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition:
Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
So yes, trolling. I’m not gonna engage with that because someone is so edgy and tight with the term “stealing” and any deviation from a hyperbolic perspective is unacceptable, so have a good day.
I merely disagree with OP’s view where in this case “stealing” of chloroplast from another organism and then proceed to use that chloroplast in the exact way the cell is used for, and which said organism did not produce, you’re the one insist that we technically photosynthesis when eating salad. You drag me into your semantic argument. Big difference.
So if by troll you mean someone that riled up others then yep, i’m a troll for getting you so upset with the word use, you just bite the straight hook with no bait and does not let go.
It’s truly a gift to see my original comment, which boils down to “huh, odd choice of words,” defended with such eloquence. The internet may not be paradise but I ask you, where else could this meeting of the minds have occurred?
Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way for something im actively digesting.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
To put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
That’s a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, it’s still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know what’s up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition: Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
So yes, trolling. I’m not gonna engage with that because someone is so edgy and tight with the term “stealing” and any deviation from a hyperbolic perspective is unacceptable, so have a good day.
Lol, you can’t admit to losing an argument, can you.
Ohh i didn’t know it’s a competition.
You got into a semantic argument… and then started laying down incoherent definitions that you made up on the spot.
Yes, I agree, you are absolutely trolling.
I merely disagree with OP’s view where in this case “stealing” of chloroplast from another organism and then proceed to use that chloroplast in the exact way the cell is used for, and which said organism did not produce, you’re the one insist that we technically photosynthesis when eating salad. You drag me into your semantic argument. Big difference.
So if by troll you mean someone that riled up others then yep, i’m a troll for getting you so upset with the word use, you just bite the straight hook with no bait and does not let go.
Your disagreement with op about the definition of stealing IS the semantic argument. That’s what a semantic argument is.
It’s truly a gift to see my original comment, which boils down to “huh, odd choice of words,” defended with such eloquence. The internet may not be paradise but I ask you, where else could this meeting of the minds have occurred?