(untitled)

can you define who is a human being?

if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

>>10324 Apes that don't have a lot of fur and whos skulls are similar to mine.

Beings that walk on two legs(except when they cant actually) and can talk and or otherwise show signs of cognition, except for lawyers, politicians, media people, religious people and managers, they are deamons from another world who masquerade themselfs as humans.

a creature without feathers who stands on two legs

a being that defines.

featherless biped

>>10326 I don't think so

Don't get caught up on category questions, they don't lead anywhere. Categories are only fuzzy delineations meant to aid communication.

>>10324 featherless bipeds

>>10348 >>10354 Behold Plato's man

According to this website http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics average human DNA only differs about 0.1%. There should be a Human Baseline and anyone who differs more than 0.3% or something like that shouldnt be considered human.

>>10357 lmao that is such a reductionist idea

id see anything you could say might not be correct but would effectively communicate what a human is. if you sent aliens a message saying "a human is a giraffe" they would already have a better idea of what a human is upon hearing it. a definition is something we can look back to if we dont understand something. Its main goal is to assist in communication, and its pretty broad. Dictionaries of definitions are like a bible that we can look at to not stray too far in interpretation to the point where we all have different meanings of a word to the point of inability to communicate. In a philosophical paper for instance often you define terms right there and the definition is local, you use it to work through that specific paper. In conversation there is a combination, you use both a set definition, your definition, and based upon a familiarity with the person a definition local to them. The word "struggle" in the sentence "im really struggling right now" has entirely different meanings and responses from person to person. so going off of this, we see that what constitutes a definition is a spectrum and the commonality is something like establishing meaning to better communicate an idea. So when I said any meaning "might not be correct" under this new way of looking at a definition anything said by a human is correct. Because anything said would allow you to better understand what someone means when they say human, because anything said shows you more of what a human is. i play mental gymnastics unprofessionally for the heck of it though. I think if I toned it back id say the right definition is something like what wikipedia has > "Humans (taxonomically, Homo sapiens) are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina. They are characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion; high manual dexterity and heavy tool use compared to other animals; open-ended and complex language use compared to other animal communications; and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies." Is this reductive? Yes of course it is, but does it correctly define a human? Yes id say so because its as reductive/general as the word human. There is no situation you would use the word human that this wouldn't suffice. The situations you think it wouldnt involve questions like "what is it to BE human" or "what is the NATURE of a human". If you want to play gymnastics with me we can go off what I first said, if you want to have some common sense we can use wikipedia, and if youd like you could meet in the middle somewhere and make a cool history/philosophy reference and call it a featherless chicken. But I work in extremes because in just a really badass extreme dude. picture is 100% related.

>>10324 An animal that walks on two legs and does not have feathers.

>>10356 stop reposting ancient greek memes they aint funny >:|

>>10324 >>10404 +1

>>10404 >>10348 /thread

A miserable pile of secrets. I'll show myself out.

>>10345 This is actually the right answer. The answer is deep and profound.

>>10345 how does one "define"?

>>11295 i couldn't tell you there isn't really a precedent.

>>10342 B E H O L D M A N

>>10345 Huh. That ain't bad. Ends up including a whole bunch of stuff I'd want treated as humans. I'll take it.

>>11295 Using an = operator of course..

>>10336 don't forget people who work in marketing and investors.

>>11333 This is why I love lainchain