cm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 23 hours agoJust so there's no confusionlemmy.mlimagemessage-square80fedilinkarrow-up1692
arrow-up1692imageJust so there's no confusionlemmy.mlcm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 23 hours agomessage-square80fedilink
minus-squaremelsaskca@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up5·11 hours agoI fool-proofed the question…“Which came first, the egg of a chicken, or the chicken?”. And you can’t say they use eggs in dinosaur shaped pasta. /s
minus-squarepinball_wizard@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up4·edit-210 hours 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-up3·4 hours 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-up2·2 hours 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.
I fool-proofed the question…“Which came first, the egg of a chicken, or the chicken?”. And you can’t say they use eggs in dinosaur shaped pasta. /s
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.