you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 5 hours ago* (14 children)

it's just not in genus Capra

That's definitionally what goats are. It's close, being in the same subfamily, but then so are sheep.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 hours ago (13 children)

    I think words like "goat" should have a generic and unstudied applicability: if it looks like a goat, and acts like a goat, it's a goat.

    A mountain goat looks like a goat and acts like a goat, therefore it is a goat.

    A sheep neither looks like a goat, nor acts like a goat, therefore it is not a goat.

    All semantics, of course. If you want to understand goat to mean "member of genus Capra", you certainly can. If you want me to make goat mean that, you're out of luck.

    I'm willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology. I am not a monster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

    I'm willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology.

    Well that's my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p

    Like the colloquial word "goat" fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn't true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (4 children)

    Actually, they're a COBRA programmer.

    They write JavaScript and COBOL for the GI Joe villains and public health care insurance providers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (2 children)