• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    If 100 people are born with two arms and one person is born with three, we don’t go around saying “humans can be born with 2 or 3 arms!”.

    What? Yes we do. Only about one out of every hundred people is born with red hair, and we definitely say that humans can be born with red hair. If one out of every hundred people was born with three arms, we would absolutely say that some humans are born with three arms. We certainly couldn’t use having two arms in our definition of human

    • Realitätsverlust@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Only about one out of every hundred people is born with red hair

      Which is significantly more than people having a third arm.

      If one out of every hundred people was born with three arms

      Yes, but they’re not. That’s the entire point.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        I get the sense that you don’t have nearly as firm a grasp on language and communication as you think you do. You explicitly made reference to a hypothetical situation in which 100 people are born with two arms and 1 person is born with three, and then made a statement about how we would act in that hypothetical situation. If your entire point was that a shockingly small fraction of the population is born with three arms, you should not have used a nearly 1% proportion in your hypothetical.

        But also, the proportion of the population doesn’t even matter. If some humans are born with three arms, then you have to acknowledge that humans can be born with three arms. You can say that humans are typically born with two arms, but trying to define human as something that’s born with two arms would be factually incorrect.