Hear me out. There’s nothing innate to an object that makes it “food”. It’s an attribute we give to certain things that meet certain qualities, i.e. being digestible, nutritious, perhaps tasty or satisfying in some way, etc. We could really ingest just about anything, but we call the stuff that’s edible “food”. Does that make it a social construct?

  • Donebrach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    This constant trend in this stupid community to just post “Is [insert word] not what it is defined to mean??” As some mind blowing idea is exhaustingly boring.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I’ve been fairly polite in this thread but I’m tempted to call you stupid. I won’t, because I get you, but you’re missing the point.

      Is [insert word] not what it is defined to mean??

      That is NOT what I am saying, you stupid-head. Is that what you think social construct means? Read my other replies and get back to me. Explain to me why your comment is wrong and a gross misinterpretation of what I’m saying.

      • ilega_dh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I’ve been fairly polite in this thread but I’m tempted to call you stupid. I won’t

        That’s a lot of words to just call someone stupid and try to get away with it

        • TimewornTraveler@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          wow you figured it out! you even figured it out before you got to the part where i directly call them a stupid-head too