Quote:
Originally Posted by qno2
... are we sure that those two theories are different?
|
When you can just make up what definitions mean on the fly, it's fairly easy for random things to run together because it's just as easy as anything else.
Changing, for example, the definition of "human" causes a number of unforseen problems by opening up the possibility of someone who is human not being counted as such and something that is not human being counted as one. This is a problem Shkanon itself runs into, but it's slightly better-defined in that instance (though still potentially problematic if you think about it too hard).
So yes, if the definition of "human" somehow permits a seagull to be human, then you can in fact say it's a human... and possibly also say it's
not a human at other times, by just changing which definition of "human" you're using.
It ain't even remotely sporting, fair, or proper of course.