MLA is blowing my mind.

[big tiddy goth bf]

The way it continuously tries to debate philosophy with me while only accepting a small number of prefabricated simple answers is a near flawless simulation of some of my relatives. If this was a turing test this thing would pass with flying colors.

[El Profesor]

Isn't the term "dog" in itself already a branch term for many genetic variants? So then even though dog breed A has its particular sequence of DNA, dog breed B has differing DNA, yet is still a dog.

One could then argue that what makes a dog "a dog" is its behaviour. It's a four-legged animal with a certain *range of phenotypes that barks and howls and whatnot. But so does a wolf. And a wolf is not a dog. So then perhaps what makes a dog "a dog" cannot be found in any characteristic of the dog itself but is somehow related to those who label it a dog. A dog doesn't look at itself in the mirror and think "I'm a dog."

So, the extension of that would be that perhaps a person is only a person because it's perceived by other "persons" as a person. And others are only persons because that person perceives them as persons? I don't know, maybe I'm just rambling... It's 4AM, I should go to bed...