5 ms·

What? No. You're rationalizing what is clearly an error. Truth still exists, and bats do not have paws, any more than humans do.

maxbond 3y ago
(Add a grain of salt because I searched for about 15 minutes here.) Doing some digging, paws are "soft foot-like parts of a mammal, generally a quadruped, that has claws" (Wikipedia). Bats do appear to have claws, but not really with the same structure as a paw; they don't seem to be mounted above a soft, fleshy pad. Rather, they're at the top of the wing, sitting on bone. They're also very different in function, when I've had the fortune to see a bat they seemed to use the claw to climb in a similar way to how climbers use ice axes. My impression is that bat's claws are the anatomical equivalent of a thumb, not a hand/paw, and that the entire paw or hand of bat's ancestors evolved into their wings (sort of like if your fingers became very long and webbed and then you were able to fly with them). So, my conclusion is that no, the claws of a bat are not a paw. ETA: I neglected to consider their hind claws, but I don't think those are padded either. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab686b1b086f22b9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab68... That certainly has claws but I wouldn't describe that as being soft or as being similar to a paw. And they're pretty clearly made for hanging, climbing, and grasping prey/food, and not for walking.
- byyyy 3y ago
  https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw As long as it has claws according to vocabulary dot com it is a paw.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - byyyy 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        Birds don't have paws because they aren't quadrupeds according to websters. Bats walk on fours. They are quadrupeds therefore they have paws according to Merriam Webster. Why don't you address the point I brought up? I already completely understand your definition no need to reiterate it. However, there is a clear disconnect between your definition of paw and the definition from Merriam Webster. Please address it.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        four feet.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        You're very right about that; my mistake. It means four feet, not four legs.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - maxbond 3y ago
      This subthread is a flamewar that died down. Please don't rekindle it. The point has been made to death, and making it again but more insulting makes it more difficult for people who might disagree to consider the perspective, because they have to filter out their feelings about being insulted - a weighty task - in order to begin considering it, let alone accepting it.
      - irthomasthomas 3y ago
        This was amazing. Two men and an LLM arguing about facts. 2 Minutes on google scholar proved to me that bats are quadrupeds (with paws). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Quadruped%20bat https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Quadruped%20bat
    - byyyy 3y ago
      I'm ok with your language. I found the "competent in English" rather immature and juvenile, but it's not a big deal and really minor. I also understand that you might not realize how heated this sub thread was as the other guy deleted half his posts and flagged one of mine (therefore possibly making it invisible to you). So adding a little heat to something that looks tame isn't a big deal. I won't continue the flame war but I will continue the discussion. It's not my interpretation. It's about the interpretation by Merriam Webster. I believe not only is it your interpretation that is incorrect when compared to official sources, but you didn't fully read the official definition either. The eagle is not a quadruped. The definition in Merriam Webster says it has to be on a quadruped for it to be a paw. Hence your example is completely irrelevant. Please correct your mistake.
      - foobarbecue 3y ago
        I didn't delete any posts, nor did I flag or downvote any of yours. I actually resurrected one of yours (vouched) so that I could reply to it.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  I think we're getting totally taken for a ride... byyyy can't actually be serious right...? Anyway I'm enjoying imagining bats with little paws, it's an amusing image.
  - byyyy 3y ago
    I'm serious. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw Look up the definition of a paw. I think you have a sort of mixed up definition of what it is. Possibly a different definition used among your "bat expert" friends. And I quote (again): Paw: the foot of a quadruped (such as a lion or dog) that has claws broadly : the foot of an animal Both the broad and technical definition of paw fits what the bat has. Bats have paws. The thing you are referring to is likely are these soft pads that are often on the paws, sometimes called paw pads.
    - byyyy 3y ago
      Also, I don't know if you noticed. But this nuance in the definition of the word paw was addressed by chatGPT.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Well, if you're looking for my opinion, I don't think they're trolling. But I do think both of you were (intentionally or unintentionally) goading each other from a disagreement to an argument with your rhetoric (eg, where you said, "let's assume that's a reasonable source", or when they said "you obviously sourced this it just didn't match your point so you discarded it" - that brings up the temperature of the conversation).
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - byyyy 3y ago
        Bats are quadrupeds. When they walk they walk like a pterodactyl with the elbow of the wing. They don't stand on their hind legs. See the vampire bat. Additionally the "broad" definition from Merriam Websters covers it. These aren't pedantic details we are just nitpicking on either. ChatGPT's response considered the nuance the definition encompasses, which to keep on topic is thoroughly impressive and relevant to the overall conversation. Off-topic: The person you queried mentioned "intentional goading." Which is what you're continuing to do with that Calvin and Hobbes link. I think this, the flag and accusing me of trolling is taking it too far. A little minor goading is ok during a debate, (I actually don't completely agree with the absolutist politeness policies of HN). While I returned the goad (which I shouldn't have), ultimately I didn't really have a problem with it. I think, now though, it has escalated now past the point of no return. I'll be exiting this thread because of this. Farewell.

maxbond 3y ago

(Add a grain of salt because I searched for about 15 minutes here.) Doing some digging, paws are "soft foot-like parts of a mammal, generally a quadruped, that has claws" (Wikipedia). Bats do appear to have claws, but not really with the same structure as a paw; they don't seem to be mounted above a soft, fleshy pad. Rather, they're at the top of the wing, sitting on bone. They're also very different in function, when I've had the fortune to see a bat they seemed to use the claw to climb in a similar way to how climbers use ice axes. My impression is that bat's claws are the anatomical equivalent of a thumb, not a hand/paw, and that the entire paw or hand of bat's ancestors evolved into their wings (sort of like if your fingers became very long and webbed and then you were able to fly with them). So, my conclusion is that no, the claws of a bat are not a paw. ETA: I neglected to consider their hind claws, but I don't think those are padded either. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab686b1b086f22b9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab68... That certainly has claws but I wouldn't describe that as being soft or as being similar to a paw. And they're pretty clearly made for hanging, climbing, and grasping prey/food, and not for walking.

byyyy 3y ago
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw As long as it has claws according to vocabulary dot com it is a paw.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - byyyy 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - byyyy 3y ago
        Birds don't have paws because they aren't quadrupeds according to websters. Bats walk on fours. They are quadrupeds therefore they have paws according to Merriam Webster. Why don't you address the point I brought up? I already completely understand your definition no need to reiterate it. However, there is a clear disconnect between your definition of paw and the definition from Merriam Webster. Please address it.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        four feet.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        You're very right about that; my mistake. It means four feet, not four legs.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - maxbond 3y ago
    This subthread is a flamewar that died down. Please don't rekindle it. The point has been made to death, and making it again but more insulting makes it more difficult for people who might disagree to consider the perspective, because they have to filter out their feelings about being insulted - a weighty task - in order to begin considering it, let alone accepting it.
    - irthomasthomas 3y ago
      This was amazing. Two men and an LLM arguing about facts. 2 Minutes on google scholar proved to me that bats are quadrupeds (with paws). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Quadruped%20bat https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Quadruped%20bat
  - byyyy 3y ago
    I'm ok with your language. I found the "competent in English" rather immature and juvenile, but it's not a big deal and really minor. I also understand that you might not realize how heated this sub thread was as the other guy deleted half his posts and flagged one of mine (therefore possibly making it invisible to you). So adding a little heat to something that looks tame isn't a big deal. I won't continue the flame war but I will continue the discussion. It's not my interpretation. It's about the interpretation by Merriam Webster. I believe not only is it your interpretation that is incorrect when compared to official sources, but you didn't fully read the official definition either. The eagle is not a quadruped. The definition in Merriam Webster says it has to be on a quadruped for it to be a paw. Hence your example is completely irrelevant. Please correct your mistake.
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      I didn't delete any posts, nor did I flag or downvote any of yours. I actually resurrected one of yours (vouched) so that I could reply to it.
foobarbecue 3y ago
I think we're getting totally taken for a ride... byyyy can't actually be serious right...? Anyway I'm enjoying imagining bats with little paws, it's an amusing image.
- byyyy 3y ago
  I'm serious. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw Look up the definition of a paw. I think you have a sort of mixed up definition of what it is. Possibly a different definition used among your "bat expert" friends. And I quote (again): Paw: the foot of a quadruped (such as a lion or dog) that has claws broadly : the foot of an animal Both the broad and technical definition of paw fits what the bat has. Bats have paws. The thing you are referring to is likely are these soft pads that are often on the paws, sometimes called paw pads.
  - byyyy 3y ago
    Also, I don't know if you noticed. But this nuance in the definition of the word paw was addressed by chatGPT.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Well, if you're looking for my opinion, I don't think they're trolling. But I do think both of you were (intentionally or unintentionally) goading each other from a disagreement to an argument with your rhetoric (eg, where you said, "let's assume that's a reasonable source", or when they said "you obviously sourced this it just didn't match your point so you discarded it" - that brings up the temperature of the conversation).
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - byyyy 3y ago
      Bats are quadrupeds. When they walk they walk like a pterodactyl with the elbow of the wing. They don't stand on their hind legs. See the vampire bat. Additionally the "broad" definition from Merriam Websters covers it. These aren't pedantic details we are just nitpicking on either. ChatGPT's response considered the nuance the definition encompasses, which to keep on topic is thoroughly impressive and relevant to the overall conversation. Off-topic: The person you queried mentioned "intentional goading." Which is what you're continuing to do with that Calvin and Hobbes link. I think this, the flag and accusing me of trolling is taking it too far. A little minor goading is ok during a debate, (I actually don't completely agree with the absolutist politeness policies of HN). While I returned the goad (which I shouldn't have), ultimately I didn't really have a problem with it. I think, now though, it has escalated now past the point of no return. I'll be exiting this thread because of this. Farewell.