cm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 2 months agoJust so there's no confusionlemmy.mlimagemessage-square118linkfedilinkarrow-up1892arrow-down121
arrow-up1871arrow-down1imageJust so there's no confusionlemmy.mlcm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 2 months agomessage-square118linkfedilink
minus-squarepinball_wizard@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down1·edit-22 months agoIn that case the chicken came first, regardless of how we define “chicken”, we can reuse that definition for the first “chicken egg” it laid.
minus-squareGiveOver@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up5·2 months agoBut how do we define a “chicken egg”? Is it an egg containing a chicken, or an egg that’s been laid by a chicken?
minus-squarepinball_wizard@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 months agoGood point. Now I’m less sure. I guess any “egg containing a chicken” came first, by definition. I don’t think I would accept anything that didn’t come from an egg as my canonical first chicken, anyway.
In that case the chicken came first, regardless of how we define “chicken”, we can reuse that definition for the first “chicken egg” it laid.
But how do we define a “chicken egg”? Is it an egg containing a chicken, or an egg that’s been laid by a chicken?
Good point. Now I’m less sure.
I guess any “egg containing a chicken” came first, by definition. I don’t think I would accept anything that didn’t come from an egg as my canonical first chicken, anyway.