Social construct.

[Anomalocaris]

no, physics is reliant upon mathematics but there is no reason to believe it is mathematics. there is no reason, for example, to believe what constitutes the boundary of physics can be derived purely from mathematics. the boundary of chemistry, on the other hand, is in principle derivable from physics.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there's no reason to believe that the difference between a cultivar and a wild organism is sociology.

What...is....word? The whole point of the concept of a social construct is to designate things which are not, in fact or in principle, derived from physics, chemistry, or biology. Things which are not derived from any objective reality..whatsoever. Social constructs are explicitly and exclusively relative, not objective..or subjective, things. Things which owe the totality of their existence to the agreement of many people, and nothing else.

Government. A social construct. Not a fact of nature, not a law of physics. Not biology, not chemistry.

[paulpablo]

Weeds aren't social constructs. They're any wild plant growing in a cultivated space. Pets, also, not social constructs. We don't have to agree that dogs or cats or snakes or snails exist. They exist without our agreement, just like a weed.

Things like race, gender, nationality. These are social constructs.

What is a pet is subjective in the sense an animal can be a pet, food, or pest depending on what the people around it consider it to be.

A snails exist like humans exist but in terms of evolution there's no clear marker of when human became human and not the great ape humans previously evolved from.

There's not a perfect record of every single minute evolutionary change, we call ourselves human homosapiens because it works as a general description and we don't have to describe every hominid that ever existed.

If we did have a perfect record of every evolutionary change it would still be socially agreed upon labels placed on chosen points within the entire period of evolution.

[Anomalocaris]

-and there's no reason to believe that the difference between a cultivar and a wild organism is sociology.  

What...is....word?  The whole point of the concept of a social construct is to designate things which are not, in fact or in principle, derived from physics, chemistry, or biology.  Things which are not derived from any objective reality..whatsoever.  Social constructs are explicitly and exclusively relative, not objective..or subjective, things.

there is no reason to believe the difference between cultivar and wild organism is systematic and consistent, and not mere named on ad hoc basis in each case according to some a priori determination of which is the wild and which the domesticate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Weeds aren't social constructs.  They're any wild plant growing in a cultivated space.  Pets, also, not social constructs.  We don't have to agree that dogs or cats or snakes or snails exist.  They exist without our agreement, just like a weed.

Things like race, gender, nationality.  These are social constructs.

What is a pet is subjective in the sense an animal can be a pet, food, or pest depending on what the people around it consider it to be.

A snails exist like humans exist but in terms of evolution there's no clear marker of when human became human and not the great ape humans previously evolved from.

There's not a perfect record of every single minute evolutionary change, we call ourselves human homosapiens because it works as a general description and we don't have to describe every hominid that ever existed.

If we did have a perfect record of every evolutionary change it would still be socially agreed upon labels placed on chosen points within the entire period of evolution.

Humans -are- great apes.  We never stopped being that (and we never will).  We're not homo sapiens, btw, we're homo sapiens sapiens.  "Doubly wise"...we like to call ourselves.  It remains the case that pets are genetically divergent from wild populations..and, yes, even with a fucking spider or a snail, a geneticist could show you the difference.  Pets are not subjective - the coyotes on my ridgeline are not my pets, even -if- some dipshit.... somewhere.... keeps coyotes. We're pretty interesting there, we do sometimes keep wild animals in cages - like tigers. End of.

-but get to the moneyshot for christs sake? What is the point of pretending that this very simple distinction is somehow incomprehensible? Would you prefer to argue over whether or not the tarantulas in americans glass boxes are genetically distinct from those in the wild (they are)..or does this get to something worthwhile..at some point?

-and there's no reason to believe that the difference between a cultivar and a wild organism is sociology.  

What...is....word?  The whole point of the concept of a social construct is to designate things which are not, in fact or in principle, derived from physics, chemistry, or biology.  Things which are not derived from any objective reality..whatsoever.  Social constructs are explicitly and exclusively relative, not objective..or subjective, things.

there is no reason to believe the difference between cultivar and wild organism is systematic and consistent, and not mere named on ad hoc basis in each case according to some a priori determination of which is the wild and which the domesticate.

I mean, other than the pronounced genetic, morphological, and behavioral differences, eh?

I like to argue over arcane things myself...but man..sometimes...... Look, lol, go grab yourself a red jungle fowl and try to start a business selling eggs. Get back to me on that. I'd love to see you succeed...but I know you wont...... Social constructs exist, and I've seen you very adroitly separate constructs from mere reality when you talk about american and international politics, for example. There is no biological fact, no law of physics, no principle of mathematics...that makes the us global hegemon. Just the (temporary) agreement of many people to that effect - now contested.

[Anomalocaris]

What is a pet is subjective in the sense an animal can be a pet, food, or pest depending on what the people around it consider it to be.

A snails exist like humans exist but in terms of evolution there's no clear marker of when human became human and not the great ape humans previously evolved from.

There's not a perfect record of every single minute evolutionary change, we call ourselves human homosapiens because it works as a general description and we don't have to describe every hominid that ever existed.

If we did have a perfect record of every evolutionary change it would still be socially agreed upon labels placed on chosen points within the entire period of evolution.

Humans -are- great apes.  We never stopped being that (and we never will).  We're not homo sapiens, btw, we're homo sapiens sapiens.  "Doubly wise"...we like to call ourselves.  It remains the case that pets are genetically divergent from wild populations..and, yes, even with a fucking spider or a snail, a geneticist could show you the difference.  Pets are not subjective - the coyotes on my ridgeline are not my pets, even -if- some dipshit.... somewhere.... keeps coyotes.   We're pretty interesting there, we do sometimes keep wild animals in cages - like tigers.  End of.  

-but get to the moneyshot for christs sake?  What is the point of pretending that this very simple distinction is somehow incomprehensible?  Would you prefer to argue over whether or not the tarantulas in americans glass boxes are genetically distinct from those in the wild (they are)..or does this get to something worthwhile..at some point?

there is no reason to believe the difference between cultivar and wild organism is systematic and consistent, and not mere named on ad hoc basis in each case according to some a priori determination of which is the wild and which the domesticate.

I mean, other than the pronounced genetic, morphological, and behavioral differences, eh?

I like to argue over arcane things myself...but man..sometimes......  Look, lol, go grab yourself a red jungle fowl and try to start a business selling eggs.  Get back to me on that.  I'd love to see you succeed...but I know you wont......

are we sure those “pronounced” difference don’t in fact overlap heavily between domesticated and wild populations?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes. Next question.

Maybe take a breath and reassess..because we're at the point where you're asking me whether or not we're sure that teosinte and field corn are different. Let that sink in. I mean, we know they're significantly different, because we literally made them different, eh?

[paulpablo]

What is a pet is subjective in the sense an animal can be a pet, food, or pest depending on what the people around it consider it to be.

A snails exist like humans exist but in terms of evolution there's no clear marker of when human became human and not the great ape humans previously evolved from.

There's not a perfect record of every single minute evolutionary change, we call ourselves human homosapiens because it works as a general description and we don't have to describe every hominid that ever existed.

If we did have a perfect record of every evolutionary change it would still be socially agreed upon labels placed on chosen points within the entire period of evolution.

Humans -are- great apes.  We never stopped being that (and we never will).  We're not homo sapiens, btw, we're homo sapiens sapiens.  "Doubly wise"...we like to call ourselves.  It remains the case that pets are genetically divergent from wild populations..and, yes, even with a fucking spider or a snail, a geneticist could show you the difference.  Pets are not subjective - the coyotes on my ridgeline are not my pets, even -if- some dipshit.... somewhere.... keeps coyotes. We're pretty interesting there, we do sometimes keep wild animals in cages - like tigers. End of.

-but get to the moneyshot for christs sake? What is the point of pretending that this very simple distinction is somehow incomprehensible? Would you prefer to argue over whether or not the tarantulas in americans glass boxes are genetically distinct from those in the wild (they are)

There are wild caught tarantulas people keep as pets. I have never researched tarantulas admittedly but I can't see how it's possible for it's genetics to change instantaneously as soon as its been captured.

And the genetics of the animal don't really make a difference in this case anyway. Someone could have a room dedicated to pet spiders, if that person abandons the spiders and someone else comes into the house who doesn't see them as pets they aren't pets anymore. The spiders with whatever genetics they have transform from being pets to pests depending on the outlook of who is in the house with them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, there are wild caught animals that people keep "as pets" - and they..too..are genetically different from the populations we breed for that purpose.

My house is full of spiders because I just wont poison them and I like how they kill the insects that all of the cattle land around me breeds. Doesn't make them pets. Ask my wife.

Get...to.....the moneyshot. WTF? What other idea is any of this doomed bullshit supposed to introduce? Start there, right there, without any of this doomed bullshit...? Yes, there is such a thing as a social construct. No, not everything is a social construct.

.....And?

[paulpablo]

Sure, there are wild caught animals that people keep "as pets" - and they..too..are genetically different from the populations we breed for that purpose.

My house is full of spiders because I just wont poison them and I like how they kill the insects that all of the cattle land around me breeds. Doesn't make them pets. Ask my wife.

Get...to.....the moneyshot. WTF? What other idea is any of this doomed bullshit supposed to introduce? Start there, right there, without any of this doomed bullshit...? Yes, there is such a thing as a social construct. No, not everything is a social construct.

.....And?

And I'm saying pets are a social construct. It depends on the outlook of what people agree on socially.

You just said to ask your wife about the spiders.
If I did and she said yeh they are our pets my husband is talking shit, and if you and your wife were to specifically chose to pay attention and care for one of those spiders and call it Sidney then that spider that isn't a pet would now be your pet spider.
In reality your wife doesn't want them as pets so they aren't.