this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
773 points (97.8% liked)

Memes

45755 readers
997 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

the question is: is a skeleton that's missing pieces still "one skeleton"? And if so, at which point does it become not a skeleton? Because i'm reasonably sure you wouldn't call a severed foot a skeleton even though it is still arguably "one skeleton" that is just missing a lot of pieces.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i think a skeleton is just multiple bones together that are attached. A pile of bones isn’t a skeleton, it’s a pile of bones

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

so by your definition a severed foot is, indeed, a skeleton. huh.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If an anthropologist found a 2-million year old intact foot, I think they’d call it a skeleton, sure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i somehow have a feeling that they'd call that a partial skeleton (aka. less than one)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

ehh, partial skeleton, skeleton, what’s the difference? a few missing bones never hurt anybody! /s