Brutkey

C.S.Strowbridge
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social

@Jestbill@mastodon.world

"Fish have gills" is not a definition that holds up to biology, because there are animals with gills that are not fish AND THERE ARE FISH WITHOUT GILLS.

Nearly every species of lungfish don't have gills and must breathe air to get oxygen.

"Words have meanings."

Yes, but not all words have meanings that match with reality.

This is like the saying, "I before E except after C." There are too many exceptions for that to be a useful rule.

Jestbill
@Jestbill@mastodon.world

@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social To claim that there are fish without gills is to ignore the rest of the stated definition.
It also claims that one use of the word somehow negates a different use.
I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish.

Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries.

C.S.Strowbridge
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social

@Jestbill@mastodon.world

"I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish."

Are eels fish?
What about mudskippers?
Guppies?
Coelacanth?

If you can declare lungfish not fish because they don't confirm to one part of your definition, then where do you draw the line?

"Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries."

Older dictionaries defined whales as fish. Words have meanings, but those meanings change with new discoveries.

Jestbill
@Jestbill@mastodon.world

@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social I've never before been set upon by a sea lion.

Thanks for the introduction.
Now you're going to be blocked before we get into "What is a woman" and "How many genders are there really".
Bye.