Asking for a friend.

  • folkrav@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    you can’t trust it was killed for a legitimate reason

    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?

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • amio@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Like, if it was it was road kill (?) or something

        I keep running into sturgeons in my car. Hate when that happens.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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”?

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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:

          Eating endangered animals is generally agreed to be a dick move.

          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.