Now I'm the one who's starting to doubt you read my comment with a fraction of the rigor you demand from me reading that incredibly dense paper. Read it again.

Now I'm the one who's starting to doubt you read my comment with a fraction of the rigor you demand from me reading that incredibly dense paper. Read it again. I didn't say the definition of the word didn't include living things. The definition of anything is not discussed there at all. The 'unspoken' part applies to what I left implied in my argument, you don't get to rewrite my argument. What I said is that while anthropomorphization is common and can apply to everything, to me it can be a problem when it: 1. Is applied to non-living things with a genuine conviction they are truly living, and not in a ceremonial or casual way 2. Is particularly intense compared to other cases of anthropomorphization and leads to a desire to assign actual personhood to the object