Definitions are approximate. Defining "man" as "featherless biped" is good enough for most situations, but a plucked chicken isn't a man and someone who lost a leg still is.
The problem is if you do this, you have to come up with a word for people who don't eat fish, but do eat insects and crustaceans, and people who don't eat them, but do eat jellyfish, and people who don't eat them, but eat (or more realistically, use the corpses of) sea sponges. And then there's people who never eat it, people who eat it but only if otherwise it would get thrown away, people who eat it but only if they're sure the animal was raised ethically, people who will never eat meat but only eat animal products if it was raised ethically, etc. It's really not worth having overly specific words like that, and nobody is going to remember them.
Words are approximate. You can get a general idea of what a human is by saying "featherless biped", but you're not going to go around saying that a plucked chicken is a human but someone who had a leg amputated isn't. If someone generally doesn't eat animal products, but is okay with jellyfish, saying they're vegan will give a better understanding of them than saying they're not vegan.
We define vegan as someone who doesn't eat meat, in the sense that if you ask someone what it means that's what they'll say, but we don't strictly use it that way. There's just too many details to make a word for every possibility.
If reaction to physicals damage is enough to qualify as pain, a brick wall feels pain. If you damage it, it will start having holes, and eventually fall over completely.
I think at the very least you'd need some kind of learning. Pain is the stuff you learn to avoid and pleasure is the stuff you learn to do more. Without that, it's impossible to say whether an instinctive response to stimuli is a negative or positive feeling.
Jellyfish do have neurons. Fewer than an insect. Much fewer than ChatGPT. But still something. A better example is sea sponges, which don't have any neurons at all.
Others schools of thought are about avoiding animal products altogether, it doesn’t matter if it suffers or not - there’s no way to know. Therefore, it’s immoral to eat them if you can knowingly choose an alternative.
But why animals in particular? Is there any more reason to think a sea sponge would be sentient than a tree?
I like them being locally encrypted, but them being not (exclusively) locally stored is very important if you want to keep using those accounts after your hard drive fails.
Yes, but fewer people know that word, so it's less useful. And if you want to have a word to describe every specific version of "meat is bad" diets, you'd need as many words as there are people who avoid meat.
By a strict definition, no. But most vegans don't really care about scientific classification. Personally I don't think they're sentient and think it's fine.
Fun fact: there's no rule that you don't get a turn while dead. Granted, you're usually unconscious, but if you die from massive damage or from failing a save against an instant death affect you never go unconscious.
I tried that. It still seems to be limiting the width. How can I make it so it can stretch from one side of the screen to the other?