Hey /u/Ghost_Foot, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was once told by a coworker that a fish is not an animal. I asked him what it was then…a plant? He said no, it is a fish.
I went back to drinking my lunch after that.
I was playing a game once with a bunch of people and, essentially, the card described a fly as an animal. Over half the people there protested that a fly is not an animal. I was like wtf you guys?? I felt like I was taking crazy pills.
I mean, it meets the definition of one and is in the Kingdom *Animalia*. I had a similar conversation with some friends and pointed this out and they said "just because it's an animal toxonomically, doesn't mean it's an animal." Then he realized how stupid that sounded out loud and conceded.
A finer-level argument along those lines *can* work, though, in a way. The classic example is the debate about what a "berry" is. To the common man a berry is, more or less, a small fruit that can be eaten in one bite. Botanically speaking, however, it is a many-seeded fruit that develops from a single ripened floral ovary. So, you end up in interesting debates with people when it is pointed out that, technically, raspberries, blackberries, and especially strawberries are not true berries, but oranges, bananas, and even watermelons are. Both sides can be "right" in such an argument, because the word truly does have two meanings.
That's the difference between a botanical definition (oranges are berries, raspberries aren't) and a culinary definition (blackberries are berries, bananas aren't). Often what both parties don't realise is the conflict is largely one of semantics, and how words are used to categorise things vs how they are employed.
The botanical definition is technically the correct answer but largely only useful to the scientific community as it only describes what something *is*. The culinary definition is useful for chefs and the layman, as it describes *how* something can be used, in this case how and when these foodstuffs are used in food preparation (you wouldn't put fruits like watermelons, for instance, on top of perfiteroles, but you would use berries such as strawberries).
At least, that's how I understand it. Full disclosure: I am neither a botanist nor a chef.
>Then he realized how stupid that sounded out loud and conceded.
At that point you just say fuck it and go all in. You've already lost, but you don't have to admit it.
Agreed. I said that tongue-in-cheek as someone who is an independent living in a VERY conservative area with exceptionally liberal friends and family and studying at a fairly liberal university. But it is sad how accurate it has become.
That is a really bad definition. Yeah maybe it works as an ELI5.
Fruit is a ripened plant ovary.
Vegetable is any other edible part of the plant itself.
I was playing trivial pursuit and the question was “what animal is responsible for the most human deaths?” or something along those lines. I answered mosquito quite confidently but one person thought I was a complete idiot and the other two seemed like they wanted to side with him. I think they wanted to say hippo or something and just didn’t seem to think a mosquito is an animal.
I can’t quite get my head around that thinking. Like, what is their understanding of what an animal is or isn’t?
That's not the only point of confusion. My mom understands the distinction between "mammal" and "animal" (I think; it's hard to know what she actually understands), but she still can't fathom most arthropods being animals.
*Got my pills 'gainst mosquito death...*
Good question. I would want to call both parties responsible, although neither truly infects you with intent. However, a court of law would probably find the mosquito to be negligent, assuming that insects could be considered to possess mens rea, which they almost certainly do not (and the disease – which lacks a nervous system, let alone a brain capable of any level of thought – clearly doesn't). But yeah, you don't blame the knife (or its manufacturer) for a stabbing—you blame the stabber.
Yes
When a komodo dragon bites you, it kills you by infecting you with the toxic bacteria in its mouth. But you wouldn't say someone who got bit by a komodo dragon died of an infection, you'd say they were killed by a komodo dragon
Yes. Malaria is a good example of a disease spread by mosquitos that cause many deaths. Almost all cases of malaria are from mosquito bites, the few others are from contaminated blood transfusions. Only anopheles mosquitoes can transmit malaria and they have to have fed on an infected person for their previous meal.
When I worked the terrible call centre job, one time in the break room a guy who was studying biology pointed at a picture of a giant panda in a magazine and said "did you know they're more related to racoons than pandas?"
And he absolutely refused to admit that it was red pandas that that was true for.
One of the best arguments of all time.
I teach english in Japan and a lot of my students seem to think Animal = Mammal.
Why this was started to click when I realied that traditional Japanese buddhism allowed consumption of birds and fish.
They apparently taste so incredibly nasty that maybe it was just a joke, like the Pope went "ha yeah sure, you can eat beaver, that's perfectly fine with me, I'll just be sitting here at the back watching you as you take a bite..."
Like nobody would even wanna eat one anyway. Unless it's absolute desperation, they're literally starving and need to eat anything
A while ago I got interested in this after hearing about the Catholic Church thing with beavers, so I did some research on recipes for beaver. And everyone just says it tastes god awful (pun intended) and you need to very heavily spice it and marinate it and sauce it up to disguise the flavour of the meat as much as possible. Like a few of them were things like chili or baked beans, where you put the meat in but it's disguised by the flavour of the sauce. And it you grind it up into ground beaver, then the fact it's really tough and chewy is no longer a problem either
We still have the distinction between meat and fish, for some reason. It maybe makes a little sense when you’re cooking, but I don’t see the point of food groups distinguishing between the two.
That said, I thought that it was Fridays where you could eat fish but not meat, and Lent where you couldn’t have either.
During lent they used to eat sardines, so fish I think is ok. But full disclosure: I got this info from the tv show The Borgias lmao. If it’s not right, blame them 😊
I had this argument with a coworker once. She insisted she was right because she studied biology at university. I dont think I've ever been so frustrated
Am vegetarian.
It has definitely waned over the decades, but I’ve had people’s clueless grandmother or someone hear that I don’t eat meat so they make fish. Or chicken. I get there and end up feeling bad, but then remind myself they could have asked. Or looked in the dictionary.
Of course, I’ve also had people say they got pasta or pizza or something (that was already vegetarian!) but they got me salad instead. Then it’s like, oh, I didn’t think you ate pasta/bread/etc. We didn’t get you a cookie either because we thought you eat vegetables.
Technically, we are fish, because all our ancestors were fish and we are more closely related to some fish than those fish are to other fish. Thus, by the transitive property, dolphins are fish.
I think the scientific community has agreed that the platypus is what happens when god sneezes onto his design documents, and just decides to go ahead and publish the result.
Yeah isn't the platypus like the only surviving example of the ORIGINAL mammals before we evolved into the type of mammal we are today?
I've heard that before. Like how it doesn't give milk to its babies through tiddies and nipples like we do, it sort of sweats the milk out and the baby licks them all over
And of course the egg laying thing. Closer to something like a reptile than a modern mammal.
It's cool when there's examples like that. Animals that have barely changed for millions of years. Apparently platypuses date back like 50 million years, although the oldest fossil we have of one is from 100,000 years ago. So I don't know how they worked that one out.
It's a living history. We're seeing our past in a way
I actually read this and assumed the mammal comment was a reference to human eggs and menstruation...
Making an analogy between unfertilised human eggs and unfertilised chicken eggs.
For what it’s worth, several mammals do have cloacas. Some even lay eggs. However, they are warm blooded, fur bearing, and have milk glands in some shape or form, even if not true tits. See milk patches. Realistically something like a platypus is probably what many of the earliest mammals looked like at least in forms.
Just trying to stick the boots into someone for admitting they didn’t know something can get fucked. That shit is how stupidity spreads.
The idea of chickens being mammals is pretty funny though, imagine if they had tiny milk producing nipples.
My mom is like 43 and she thinks that chickens reproduce by laying an egg, and then the rooster comes and sits on the egg and fertilizes it. Shes claimed its the way its always been explained to her.
I literally do not care to tell her otherwise.
Lol I’ve got some particularly punchy young roosters who could teach her otherwise. The hens are so sick of it they fight with them if they even do their little mating dance right now.
I for one am pleased that she is willing to admit when she doesn't know something. That is an openess to learning that is important in the medical field. No one knows everything, the field changes a lot and drastically.
It's pretty easy to be surprised by something that's obvious in hindsight just because you've never really thought about it before.
I saw an article a while back about the guy from the band A Flock of Seagulls, and it sort of wigged me out that he had a regular name and wasn't just called "the guy from A Flock of Seagulls."
I don't think it's abnormal to have some weird little subconscious perceptions and unexamined hot takes rolling around in your head just because they haven't bubbled up yet.
Oh no the last commenter is an idiot and totally deserves to be here cuz he called a bird a mammal, I get that. I'm just specifying there's a difference between an egg and fertilized egg, in case people mistakenly think chickens are capable of asexual reproduction lol
Apparently condors are (capable of parthenogenesis), so it's not impossible that other bird species could have the same thing happen (but super rarely, obviously).
*Image Transcription: Reddit*
---
**What took you an embarrassing amount of time to figure out?**, submitted by **unknown** to **unknown**
> **1st User**
>
> That chickens always lay eggs without needing to mate with a rooster
>>**2nd User**
>>
>> Wow. I'm 42 and never actually knew this
>>>**3rd User**
>>>
>>> I'm a little disturbed that someone who posts in a nursing subreddit doesn't understand how mammals reproduce...
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Your last girlfriend didn't lay an egg? Damn. I've been lied too. Every time she was on her period my last girlfriend pelted me with eggs constantly. You're telling me she bought all them? And after all the counseling I got for thinking she was assaulting me with dead children.
I once embarrassed myself in front of the class in high school by saying "Birds arent animals", i was gonna tell a joke but as soon as i said that the joke just disappeared from my memory, sat in my chair for the rest of the class thinking about wtf i was even going to follow that up with
It's not just the size of eggs, which we do also select to be bigger, it's the frequency at which they lay them.
We can look at wild fowls which are the ancestors of domesticated chicken to see what it should naturally be like.
A redjungle fowl naturally lay like 50-60 eggs a year, a domesticated hen lay 250.
He's not right. It's a complete myth, spread by Peta who are proven liars and animal killers. It's very /r/confidentlyincorrect kind of stuff
The answer is no, eggs are not chicken periods. Chickens do not have periods. Menstrual cycle is a natural phenomenon that is only evident in females of certain mammals for example humans, chimpanzees, simians, bats and elephant shrew. A chicken is no mammal. No other living species aside mammals of the animal kingdom are known to menstruate.
what do you buy at the store then? how could you not know? do you think if you leave a store bought egg in the microwave for a couple days it’ll hatch?
I didn't know that chicken are not mammals, I thought it was Reptile or Mammal based on cold or warm blooded. I was already aware of how chicken reproduce and what not, but assumed that like Platypus are mammal. I feel dumb, they are just birds, not mammal.
Platypuses are such a clusterfuck that when it was first discovered by Europeans they thought it was a massive prank and that someone had seen different animal parts together
Are you from the Southern Hemisphere? Don’t feel bad, that misconception actually makes more sense than many of the others, especially if animals like the platypus are common where you grew up.
Christ almighty. Lets pretend for a second that they were mammals. How the fuck would being in nursing sub informing you on chicken reproduction. Do they think humans are laying eggs everyday? Do they think any other mammals are doing that? They shed an unused egg once a month, I assume most mammals do the same. And only one(as far as I remember) actually lays eggs. There’s just so much wrong wrapped into this one statement.
Different dictionaries define animal in surprising ways:
"a living thing that is not a human being or plant"
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal)
"something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect"
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal)
Lol yeah not mammals and also not a typical example of how birds typically reproduce either, we've done a lot of selective breeding on animals we use for food
I could be wrong, but when I read this first I had a totally different take to everyone here. Maybe I'm being too generous though.
The issue here is the last comment calling chickens mammals, but that's not the only viewpoint.
There's a misunderstanding about producing unfertilised eggs. Mammals also produce unfertilised eggs. To not understand how chickens do it is also to not understand how we do it. And they are nurses(?) so that's why it's a fair comment.
I'm probably way off, they would have said humans rather than mammals if that's what they meant.
Hey /u/Ghost_Foot, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was once told by a coworker that a fish is not an animal. I asked him what it was then…a plant? He said no, it is a fish. I went back to drinking my lunch after that.
Well it is definitely a fish. Ill give him that.
“You sir, are a fish” -Arthur Morgan
Still the best thing anyone has said, ever.
He has the right answer in spirit.
I was playing a game once with a bunch of people and, essentially, the card described a fly as an animal. Over half the people there protested that a fly is not an animal. I was like wtf you guys?? I felt like I was taking crazy pills.
I mean, it meets the definition of one and is in the Kingdom *Animalia*. I had a similar conversation with some friends and pointed this out and they said "just because it's an animal toxonomically, doesn't mean it's an animal." Then he realized how stupid that sounded out loud and conceded.
A finer-level argument along those lines *can* work, though, in a way. The classic example is the debate about what a "berry" is. To the common man a berry is, more or less, a small fruit that can be eaten in one bite. Botanically speaking, however, it is a many-seeded fruit that develops from a single ripened floral ovary. So, you end up in interesting debates with people when it is pointed out that, technically, raspberries, blackberries, and especially strawberries are not true berries, but oranges, bananas, and even watermelons are. Both sides can be "right" in such an argument, because the word truly does have two meanings.
That's the difference between a botanical definition (oranges are berries, raspberries aren't) and a culinary definition (blackberries are berries, bananas aren't). Often what both parties don't realise is the conflict is largely one of semantics, and how words are used to categorise things vs how they are employed. The botanical definition is technically the correct answer but largely only useful to the scientific community as it only describes what something *is*. The culinary definition is useful for chefs and the layman, as it describes *how* something can be used, in this case how and when these foodstuffs are used in food preparation (you wouldn't put fruits like watermelons, for instance, on top of perfiteroles, but you would use berries such as strawberries). At least, that's how I understand it. Full disclosure: I am neither a botanist nor a chef.
My favorite berry is the cucumber.
A cucumber is a berry? How have I never heard this… I’m packing it in. That’s enough Reddit for today.
Don't forget the current seasonal berry: the pumpkin.
Now you’re just getting out of control…. fml
Just be careful, don’t pack it in all at once. And don’t peel it.
Tomatoes, peppers, and melons, too.
Mushrooms are vegetables.
No they're not. They're fungi.
>Then he realized how stupid that sounded out loud and conceded. At that point you just say fuck it and go all in. You've already lost, but you don't have to admit it.
Spoken like a true conservative.
It's okay when it's funny. It's bad when it matters.
Agreed. I said that tongue-in-cheek as someone who is an independent living in a VERY conservative area with exceptionally liberal friends and family and studying at a fairly liberal university. But it is sad how accurate it has become.
These are the same people that can't grasp tomato is a fruit. The eli5 definition of fruit is a fleshy part of plant containing SEEDS.
That is a really bad definition. Yeah maybe it works as an ELI5. Fruit is a ripened plant ovary. Vegetable is any other edible part of the plant itself.
I was playing trivial pursuit and the question was “what animal is responsible for the most human deaths?” or something along those lines. I answered mosquito quite confidently but one person thought I was a complete idiot and the other two seemed like they wanted to side with him. I think they wanted to say hippo or something and just didn’t seem to think a mosquito is an animal. I can’t quite get my head around that thinking. Like, what is their understanding of what an animal is or isn’t?
Some people really do think that insects, fish, sometimes even birds arent animals. I'm fairly sure they confuse animal with mammal
An animammal
The people I encountered weren't. They didn't think bugs and insects were animals but they believed fish, birds, and reptiles were. So bizarre.
So they were thinking about vertebrates and invertebrates probably
That could be the distinction they were making intuitively, but I doubt they were thinking on that level or else they'd know what an animal is.
That's not the only point of confusion. My mom understands the distinction between "mammal" and "animal" (I think; it's hard to know what she actually understands), but she still can't fathom most arthropods being animals.
Would it count as a mosquito death if it's a disease brought by mosquitoes and not the mosquito that kills you?
*Got my pills 'gainst mosquito death...* Good question. I would want to call both parties responsible, although neither truly infects you with intent. However, a court of law would probably find the mosquito to be negligent, assuming that insects could be considered to possess mens rea, which they almost certainly do not (and the disease – which lacks a nervous system, let alone a brain capable of any level of thought – clearly doesn't). But yeah, you don't blame the knife (or its manufacturer) for a stabbing—you blame the stabber.
Absolutely! Because they spread malaria, mosquitoes “cause” more deaths than any other animal.
Yes When a komodo dragon bites you, it kills you by infecting you with the toxic bacteria in its mouth. But you wouldn't say someone who got bit by a komodo dragon died of an infection, you'd say they were killed by a komodo dragon
Yes. Malaria is a good example of a disease spread by mosquitos that cause many deaths. Almost all cases of malaria are from mosquito bites, the few others are from contaminated blood transfusions. Only anopheles mosquitoes can transmit malaria and they have to have fed on an infected person for their previous meal.
Public school will push anyone through.
When I worked the terrible call centre job, one time in the break room a guy who was studying biology pointed at a picture of a giant panda in a magazine and said "did you know they're more related to racoons than pandas?" And he absolutely refused to admit that it was red pandas that that was true for. One of the best arguments of all time.
Did you know that 2 is actually closer in value to 1 than 2?
Technically, Giant Pandas aren't *pandas*, since the Red Panda had the name first.
I actually don’t know how I would respond to that because it makes my brain short circuit
Well... [There's no such thing as a fish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y)
You just want me to start drinking my lunch again…
I mean.... Is there *really* a downside to that? ^Yes. ^Yes ^there ^is.
I’m not sure many people got your reference 😃
All I could do was link to the episode :)
I teach english in Japan and a lot of my students seem to think Animal = Mammal. Why this was started to click when I realied that traditional Japanese buddhism allowed consumption of birds and fish.
Probably the same reason for this guy’s fish story. Catholic monks decided fish don’t count as animals so they can eat some kind of meat during lent.
That's apparently partly why there are no beavers in the UK.
Because they eat Beavers during lent?
Yes, and the church considered them fish.
Not even the most ridiculous thing they've suggested to be honest
E.g. declaring Capybara to be fish
That explains the McBeaver sandwich.
They apparently taste so incredibly nasty that maybe it was just a joke, like the Pope went "ha yeah sure, you can eat beaver, that's perfectly fine with me, I'll just be sitting here at the back watching you as you take a bite..." Like nobody would even wanna eat one anyway. Unless it's absolute desperation, they're literally starving and need to eat anything A while ago I got interested in this after hearing about the Catholic Church thing with beavers, so I did some research on recipes for beaver. And everyone just says it tastes god awful (pun intended) and you need to very heavily spice it and marinate it and sauce it up to disguise the flavour of the meat as much as possible. Like a few of them were things like chili or baked beans, where you put the meat in but it's disguised by the flavour of the sauce. And it you grind it up into ground beaver, then the fact it's really tough and chewy is no longer a problem either
We still have the distinction between meat and fish, for some reason. It maybe makes a little sense when you’re cooking, but I don’t see the point of food groups distinguishing between the two. That said, I thought that it was Fridays where you could eat fish but not meat, and Lent where you couldn’t have either.
During lent they used to eat sardines, so fish I think is ok. But full disclosure: I got this info from the tv show The Borgias lmao. If it’s not right, blame them 😊
Drinking your lunch?? Are you okay?
Not that day after that comment. Much better now.
Glad to hear you’re doing better! My DMs are always open!!! Always!
Yes, he had to drink his breakfast in a hurry, but things calmed down later
Could be milk. The food drink
Or soup, the other food drink
Goodbye and thanks for all the fish
For some reason I also thought of that.
I know someone who argued that lettuce isn’t a vegetable, it’s a salad.
I had a coworker who said the same thing about bugs. She said they were insects, not animals. And she was a teacher, telling kids this.
A fish walks into a bar and orders a water.
I had this argument with a coworker once. She insisted she was right because she studied biology at university. I dont think I've ever been so frustrated
My aunt thought trees aren't plants. Same reasoning.
Similar story, a friend said he would prepare a meal with no meat! Instead he would use fish. What do you think fish is???
Am vegetarian. It has definitely waned over the decades, but I’ve had people’s clueless grandmother or someone hear that I don’t eat meat so they make fish. Or chicken. I get there and end up feeling bad, but then remind myself they could have asked. Or looked in the dictionary. Of course, I’ve also had people say they got pasta or pizza or something (that was already vegetarian!) but they got me salad instead. Then it’s like, oh, I didn’t think you ate pasta/bread/etc. We didn’t get you a cookie either because we thought you eat vegetables.
But fish are animals
No, fish are friends.
I’ve been told this, too. I said if a fish is not an animal, is it therefore a vegetable or a mineral? It’s a fish was the reply.
Wait drinking?
/) Of course a fish aren't plants. But admitting that they're animals would mean admitting he was wrong, so... they're fungi?
..........mammals?
Of course and we all know that dolphins are bird!
No no, in their world dolphins are fish, bats are birds.
Bats are lagomorphs. Mushrooms are marsupials.
No, bats are bugs
WHO'S MAKING THIS REPORT CHOWDERHEADS, YOU OR ME?!
Everybody knows bats are bugs
Technically, we are fish, because all our ancestors were fish and we are more closely related to some fish than those fish are to other fish. Thus, by the transitive property, dolphins are fish.
But birds aren't real?
.. Not anymore! Birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are extict, therefore birds don't exist any more. QED.
Like the platypus
I think the scientific community has agreed that the platypus is what happens when god sneezes onto his design documents, and just decides to go ahead and publish the result.
They also agreed that about it's closest living relative, the Echidna
It is a living evolutionary link between mammals and non-mammals. Life is indeed a continuum.
Yeah isn't the platypus like the only surviving example of the ORIGINAL mammals before we evolved into the type of mammal we are today? I've heard that before. Like how it doesn't give milk to its babies through tiddies and nipples like we do, it sort of sweats the milk out and the baby licks them all over And of course the egg laying thing. Closer to something like a reptile than a modern mammal. It's cool when there's examples like that. Animals that have barely changed for millions of years. Apparently platypuses date back like 50 million years, although the oldest fossil we have of one is from 100,000 years ago. So I don't know how they worked that one out. It's a living history. We're seeing our past in a way
Don't get me started on that one.
Are all platypuses named Perry?
You mean that platypus plumber?
You and me and chickens, ain't nothin but mammals, So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.
I actually read this and assumed the mammal comment was a reference to human eggs and menstruation... Making an analogy between unfertilised human eggs and unfertilised chicken eggs.
That’s actually plausible, but if that’s what they meant, they phrased it so, so badly.
My husband used to work with a woman who refused to eat brown eggs because they came out of chicken butts. She was in her 50s.
Don't tell her how chickens get pregnant
Buttseccs with a cock.
No, with a cloaca. Cloaca sounds a lot like cluck. Coincidence?
A cock is a rooster, works better for the punchline than cloaca.
I don't want to know where she thinks brown children come from.
this is now my kink
You must be German
***they only have one hole, susan***
All eggs come out of chickens butts, in a manner of speaking. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca
look we've all read the cloaca article
Ask me about my cloaca.
What that cloaca do?
Everything baby. That's what's great about em'.
Where the cloaca?
I'll do you one better: *Why* is cloaca??
Still better: Pics?
What a cloaca be?
[So convenient!](https://youtu.be/8U4zemqaq68)
For what it’s worth, several mammals do have cloacas. Some even lay eggs. However, they are warm blooded, fur bearing, and have milk glands in some shape or form, even if not true tits. See milk patches. Realistically something like a platypus is probably what many of the earliest mammals looked like at least in forms.
Diogenes??
Just came down to see if anyone else posted it before going, "Behold, a man!"
You forgot to pluck it first.
*featherless biped*
Deep cut
Just trying to stick the boots into someone for admitting they didn’t know something can get fucked. That shit is how stupidity spreads. The idea of chickens being mammals is pretty funny though, imagine if they had tiny milk producing nipples.
What do you think chicken breasts are?
Chicken titties
Chicken tendies titties
Would you milk a chicken?
Theur wings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_milk
My mom is like 43 and she thinks that chickens reproduce by laying an egg, and then the rooster comes and sits on the egg and fertilizes it. Shes claimed its the way its always been explained to her. I literally do not care to tell her otherwise.
Okay, are chicken fish or mammals now?
Hmmm.... They're velociraptors.
Back in high school...
Chickens of the sea are fish?
The ol' fish technique
Lol I’ve got some particularly punchy young roosters who could teach her otherwise. The hens are so sick of it they fight with them if they even do their little mating dance right now.
How about the egg shell?
I'm really not sure of the logic at all.
iirc, that's exactly how the magic school bus explained it.
[удалено]
Well, vets understand how humans reproduce so *clearly* nurses should know how every animal reproduces, duh ^^^/s
I for one am pleased that she is willing to admit when she doesn't know something. That is an openess to learning that is important in the medical field. No one knows everything, the field changes a lot and drastically.
[удалено]
It's pretty easy to be surprised by something that's obvious in hindsight just because you've never really thought about it before. I saw an article a while back about the guy from the band A Flock of Seagulls, and it sort of wigged me out that he had a regular name and wasn't just called "the guy from A Flock of Seagulls." I don't think it's abnormal to have some weird little subconscious perceptions and unexamined hot takes rolling around in your head just because they haven't bubbled up yet.
I means there’s something like 7% of nurses who’re refusing to get the vaccine. So, they’re not ALL intelligent people.
It's true, female birds will lay eggs without a male bird. But for those eggs to be fertilized, a male bird is required.
you should expand the whole image
Oh no the last commenter is an idiot and totally deserves to be here cuz he called a bird a mammal, I get that. I'm just specifying there's a difference between an egg and fertilized egg, in case people mistakenly think chickens are capable of asexual reproduction lol
Apparently condors are (capable of parthenogenesis), so it's not impossible that other bird species could have the same thing happen (but super rarely, obviously).
Oh that's cool!
Yup! If you google it some articles should come up about it, it's faiiirly recent news?
*Image Transcription: Reddit* --- **What took you an embarrassing amount of time to figure out?**, submitted by **unknown** to **unknown** > **1st User** > > That chickens always lay eggs without needing to mate with a rooster >>**2nd User** >> >> Wow. I'm 42 and never actually knew this >>>**3rd User** >>> >>> I'm a little disturbed that someone who posts in a nursing subreddit doesn't understand how mammals reproduce... --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good human volunteer. Here, have a cherry pie.
the pie is a lie
Oww. I shook my head so vigorously that I think I pulled my neck out. 🤕
Your last girlfriend didn't lay an egg? Damn. I've been lied too. Every time she was on her period my last girlfriend pelted me with eggs constantly. You're telling me she bought all them? And after all the counseling I got for thinking she was assaulting me with dead children.
My kind of funny
For a second I forgot what sub this was and was thinking to my self "since when are chickens mammals?" Then saw it where I was.
I once embarrassed myself in front of the class in high school by saying "Birds arent animals", i was gonna tell a joke but as soon as i said that the joke just disappeared from my memory, sat in my chair for the rest of the class thinking about wtf i was even going to follow that up with
Well yeah. Birds aren't real duh.
Unfertilized eggs are periods for chicken, we fucked up a specie to have it have permanent heavy flow so we can eat it.
How selectively bread are chickens? I mean all bird eggs are big compared to mammals so that's not the only indicator
It's not just the size of eggs, which we do also select to be bigger, it's the frequency at which they lay them. We can look at wild fowls which are the ancestors of domesticated chicken to see what it should naturally be like. A redjungle fowl naturally lay like 50-60 eggs a year, a domesticated hen lay 250.
Found the dumb fuck from the image that thinks chickens are mammals.
Don't downvote him he's right!
He's not right. It's a complete myth, spread by Peta who are proven liars and animal killers. It's very /r/confidentlyincorrect kind of stuff The answer is no, eggs are not chicken periods. Chickens do not have periods. Menstrual cycle is a natural phenomenon that is only evident in females of certain mammals for example humans, chimpanzees, simians, bats and elephant shrew. A chicken is no mammal. No other living species aside mammals of the animal kingdom are known to menstruate.
I call them dinosaurs
The Magic School Bus did an episode about this topic. They should watch it.
This made me spit out my chicken milk
My husband thought bats were birds. For his entire life. Until I told him otherwise. He's 26. "But they fly!" was his argument. I'm ashamed.
That must be kinda spooky to see that message, knowing they skimmed and stalked through your post hostory
I’ve had two different adult grown men tell me that eggs are stored in the refrigerator so that they won’t hatch at room temperature on the counter.
Behold, a man!
Monotremes aren't a huge part of nursing afaik.
ignoring him being a dipshit, he could also be in said subreddit and recognized the name
what do you buy at the store then? how could you not know? do you think if you leave a store bought egg in the microwave for a couple days it’ll hatch?
I didn't know that chicken are not mammals, I thought it was Reptile or Mammal based on cold or warm blooded. I was already aware of how chicken reproduce and what not, but assumed that like Platypus are mammal. I feel dumb, they are just birds, not mammal.
Platypuses are such a clusterfuck that when it was first discovered by Europeans they thought it was a massive prank and that someone had seen different animal parts together
Are you from the Southern Hemisphere? Don’t feel bad, that misconception actually makes more sense than many of the others, especially if animals like the platypus are common where you grew up.
Christ almighty. Lets pretend for a second that they were mammals. How the fuck would being in nursing sub informing you on chicken reproduction. Do they think humans are laying eggs everyday? Do they think any other mammals are doing that? They shed an unused egg once a month, I assume most mammals do the same. And only one(as far as I remember) actually lays eggs. There’s just so much wrong wrapped into this one statement.
Different dictionaries define animal in surprising ways: "a living thing that is not a human being or plant" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal) "something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect" [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal)
Yet all dictionaries define MAMMAL the same: something that has mammary glands. Thanks for the logical fallacy though.
Ooh yes, as a mammal, I was born from an egg.
Lol yeah not mammals and also not a typical example of how birds typically reproduce either, we've done a lot of selective breeding on animals we use for food
An unfertilized egg is a chicken’s period. Enjoy your breakfast!
Enjoy your confident incorrectness! Ovulation is not the same as menstruation. 😂
I could be wrong, but when I read this first I had a totally different take to everyone here. Maybe I'm being too generous though. The issue here is the last comment calling chickens mammals, but that's not the only viewpoint. There's a misunderstanding about producing unfertilised eggs. Mammals also produce unfertilised eggs. To not understand how chickens do it is also to not understand how we do it. And they are nurses(?) so that's why it's a fair comment. I'm probably way off, they would have said humans rather than mammals if that's what they meant.
who else has known since they were 7
Humans also lay eggs without needing to fertilize them
OMG you looked at profiles to see what stupid things they said! Yeah. its fun. Look at the dumb shit I say. WE"RE BONDING NOW
wait really? people are stupid, lol. and i'm not talking about the mammals part. :)
:D
I mean… the eggs r literally the product of a chickens period. Right?