Noids thought process is amazing, how in the hell he went from trans people to trees I'll never know. At least now we all know that if a painting of a tree is actually a painting of a photo of a tree than it's not scientifically a tree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect
Like, a painting of a tree is scientifically “a tree.” Look at it, it’s a tree. It’s not the same thing as it being a conifer. Or it having actual roots in the ground. Or it also being made of paint. Or it being comprised of shapes. Or is it even a tree? Maybe it’s a painting of a photo of a tree? Maybe the artist did paint a tree and it’s supposed to be a tree and the artwork is called “Tree.” Whatever. That’s cool. But to see that painting, have no more information and to say “scientifically that is a tree.” Is it? It depends. It may be in how it is perceived and described by people, but it’s not botanically.
|