DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
[serious];65544210 said:If using the "tastes like" definition of kind, there's lots of animals in the chicken kind!
I wouldn't talk.It also explains bats in the bible. The flying kind!
[serious];65543210 said:The problem with the one you gave me was you weren't actually using it.
If kind = species, we've observed changes in kinds. If kind =/= species, you need to present an alternate definition.
You first said:
then you backed off that track and said:
So if kind =/= species, you still haven't defined kind.
If you need to supply australian cattle dogs to herd those animals, the wolf will not be in that kind. In fact, chihuahua would not be in that kind. Does this mean that the australian cattle dog, chihuahuas, and wolves are all different kinds?
juvenissun said:How to define dog kind? Hmm..., how about:
[morphological descriptions] + [obedient to human] ?
Ow, I would definatly put them in the same kind.
A good nicely grilled horse steak. I know it freaks Americans out. Sorry guys
Anyway, this shows how it becomes futile to talk about a word where apparantly everyone gets to create its own definition of it.
So can you give a clear and unambiguous definition of "kind" or not?
If no, just say no.
If yes, say "yes" immediatly followed by that definition.
Thank you.
[serious];65544210 said:If using the "tastes like" definition of kind, there's lots of animals in the chicken kind!
They are in the same kind (dog), only different in names. That is a reasonable classification.
How to define dog kind? Hmm..., how about:
[morphological descriptions] + [obedient to human] ?
It also explains bats in the bible. The flying kind!
Yes. Kind is a term used for life form classification.
It is quite schiduebierd to ask this question.
Perfect, now we just have to find disobedient dogs and we've got a new kind. Yeesh...
What is a gallon exactly?
A gallon is a term used for liquid measurement.
^Laugh if you get it, scratch your head if not.
In fact, not too bad. the flying kind may includes ALL life kind that can fly. Flying is a wonderful behavior and is definitely worthy to be a major criterion.
I think you might be too smart to accept this common sense.
I'm about to mow my lawn - could you please hurry and put it in the non-life kind so it will stop growing?
What is wrong with that. I think it is quite good.
I like how you're making it up on the spot
juvenissun said:Seriously, you do that. Find a "dog" which does not obey any human. Then I will take that criterion back.
What is wrong with that. I think it is quite good.
Good, an example is the grass. You chop millions of them into half without having a slightest feeling of guilty. (do they bleed when you cut them?)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?