cm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 10 days agoJust so there's no confusionlemmy.mlimagemessage-square117linkfedilinkarrow-up1883
arrow-up1862imageJust so there's no confusionlemmy.mlcm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 10 days agomessage-square117linkfedilink
minus-squarepinball_wizard@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down1·10 days 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-up5·9 days 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-up3·9 days 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.