• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    red panda

    I don’t think that’s a concern, because pandas (red or otherwise) aren’t technically part of the Ursidae family and wouldn’t qualify.

    I’ll spot you that polar bears and brown bears would likely be more of a problem in person. I believe the other kind of bear could conceivably be more of a threat online, but only because they tend to have sharper wits and tongues than the heterosexuals in their genus.

      • Klear@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Here’s the thing. You said a “red pandas are ursidae.” Are they in the same order? Yes. No one’s arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies red pandas, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls red pandas bears. If you want to be “specific” like you said, then you shouldn’t either. They’re not the same thing. If you’re saying “bear family” you’re referring to the taxonomic grouping of ursidae, which includes things from short-faced bears to dog bears to giant pandas. So your reasoning for calling a red panda a bear is because random people “call the cuddly ones bears?” Let’s get raccoons and koalas in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It’s not one or the other, that’s not how taxonomy works. They’re both. A red panda is a red panda and a member of the ailuridae family. But that’s not what you said. You said red pandas are ursidae, which is not true unless you’re okay with calling all members of the carnivora order bears, which means you’d call cats, dogs, and other mammals bears, too. Which you said you don’t. It’s okay to just admit you’re wrong, you know?