Me: "wait in this hypothetical were you always a worm or like turned into a worm by a wizard or something? Cuz in the first scenario I doubt we'd ever meet, unless I was also a worm. In the second scenario, would you have the cognitive abilities of a worm or would you retain human sapience somehow, even though that's not physiologically possible as a worm. If the former, would you really still be you, materially speaking? You've been reduced to the brain function of a worm, I'd say as a human you're functionally dead."
I flubbed this one up yesterday, saying I'd water them from when they'd escape and almost turn into jerky. My partner, "Are you saying I'd be a dumb worm?"
"Well babe you'd literally have a worm's brain, so you'd be totally incapable of higher thought. You'd be a being of pure instinct not really capable of 'intelligence' as we humans conceptualize... why are you crying?"
Someone told me "she's never going to be a worm, but she really will get her feelings hurt if you say no." I think of it like Games Done Quick charity marathons where you can either donate to save the animals in a speedrun of Metroid Fusion during the final sequence when the planet is blowing up or save the frames by ignoring the animals instead. In my head, you save the frames because they're real while the animals are not. Circling back, her feelings are real, the scenario is not, so it seems optimal to meta-scum the answers that maximize her happiness.
Are you genuinely in trouble for this or are you doing a boomer joke? It's a boomer question anyway. It's the new 'does this make me look fat?' joke that tired ass comedians have been doing some version of since ww2 ended or earlier. It's not really an interesting question cause asking if you'd still love someone if they were entirely fundamentally different means they are not that person and in this case a worm so saying no doesn't mean you don't love them, it means you don't have feeling for worms.