Slamlander wrote:
Does that then mean that you agree that Ellis is a construct?
That is outside the scope of the argument I made there and I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. I can only assume you are mixing together unrelated arguments I've made.
Slamlander wrote:
We are skirting the absurd here. A Golem can construct another Golem, as a robot can construct another robot. That doesn't alter the basic nature of either of them and in either case, the new construct is not an offspring, rather simply another robot or Golem.
Exactly the point I was making. Someone else was suggesting that a Golem that constructs another Golem was equivalent to biological reproduction and therefor reproduction would not be much different from construction. I was attempting to debunk that argument by showing the above.
Slamlander wrote:
Likewise, by discounting it you can make any counter-claim you want
What? That one is just plain insulting...
By rejecting the stringing together of barely relevant definitions as an argument, I am also implicitly rejecting the notion of stringing together an empty set of definitions as an argument.
Why do you think I've been making a point of establishing what _definition_ of construct we should be discussing? That is because I'm very aware of this problem.
Slamlander wrote:
Actually, there is no cannonical evidence for either. I only mentioned what he looked like. We don't have enough details of Ellis' fabrication to know, either way. It's indeed possible that we wasn't at all born with wings and they were created by magic, polymorph or otherwise, during his construction. Equally, there is no support for him being able to breed true (exit, the DNA discussions). Although, he seems to have functional equipment for breeding, there is nothing that leads us to believe that the kittens wouldn't be normal kittens.
We do know that one of the familiars with wings, the unicorn, does breed true. Although I admit there's a possibility the wings are crafted on afterwards, it doesn't seem that likely to me.
But I guess that is the discussion we should really be having, which is why I'm making a point of getting the right definition of construct. And if the wings really are added after birth, it does make it possible constructing is involved if it is not a mutation/growth during their life-cycle.
On the other hand, if we are dealing with true-bred creatures, do you agree that they are not a construct?
Slamlander wrote:
One thing our modern science does yield, six-limbed modern vertebrates do not exist and genetically creating one is next to impossible, with simple genetics. In short, other than wyverns, dragons do not exist and can never have existed, reptilian or otherwise.
The problem is magic seems to follow somewhat different rules from modern science.
Slamlander wrote:
The definition of 'construct' is simple; something that is made, period. Take a cat and add a pair of bat-wings, as well as enough IQ to make him a real pain-in-the-ass smart-mouth, and you have Ellis, a construct.
A problem with pure logic is that it can be 100% correct, in form, and 100% wrong, in conclusion.
I know pure logic, and this isn't it... And as most people who know it, I also think I know something about how to correctly use it as a tool.
The reason I'm so obsessed with establishing what we mean by construct in this discussion, is because it became obvious that there were wildly different opinions on what it meant.
Quote:
Latin cōnstruere, cōnstrūct- : com-, com- + struere, to pile up; see ster-2 in Indo-European roots.
And I disagree with your definition of construct. The main definitions are largely tilted towards something consisting of multiple parts, assembled or devised.
You definition fits better with something that is created, a more generic definition.