Funny

13908 readers

547 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

842

Just so there's no confusion (infosec.pub)

submitted 5 days ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

114 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I fool-proofed the question..."Which came first, the egg of a chicken, or the chicken?". And you can't say they use eggs in dinosaur shaped pasta. /s

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

In that case the chicken came first, regardless of how we define "chicken", we can reuse that definition for the first "chicken egg" it laid.

[–] GiveOver@feddit.uk 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But how do we define a "chicken egg"? Is it an egg containing a chicken, or an egg that's been laid by a chicken?

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 days ago

Good point. Now I'm less sure.

I guess any "egg containing a chicken" came first, by definition. I don't think I would accept anything that didn't come from an egg as my canonical first chicken, anyway.