ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
Technically, the thumb is not a finger...
Go on... I'm very curious to see how you redefine a specialized finger as not really a finger.
Ah, right proper sarcastic condescension born from ignorance and misunderstanding...
I'm not 're-defining' anything. In the colloquial sense, you can refer to a thumb as one of your "fingers."
The reasons the thumb is often not consider a finger is because it's opposable to the other digits on the hand. You can touch your thumb tip to any finger tip, but you can't touch finger tip to finger tip (on the same hand).
Some primates don't have thumbs. Some have thumb-like digits that aren't opposable. That's why the thumb is not considered a true finger but rather a
digit of the hand.
THINK.
You may have said pointer
finger or index
finger.
You may have said middle
finger.
You may have said ring
finger.
You may have said pinky
finger.
...but have you ever in the course of your life ever said "thumb
finger" ?
Again...think before responding.
Tell me more about your
thumb finger, son.
You're not really rebutting what I said when you have to lead-in by conceding that much. The digits of the hand are fingers, that includes the opposable one. Arguing that we have a more precise term to refer to that specific finger doesn't make that digit no longer a finger.
The reason that specialized finger isn't a finger due to it's specialization isn't a very solid argument. Thumbs are a subset of the broader category finger, fingers are a subset of the broader category digits.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う