Is the foot part of the leg?
 

Well, is it?

Does the leg begin at the hip and continue to the end of the toes, or does the leg end at the ankle, and have a foot attached?

The foot is separate. Likewise, it does not count as "the leg" if you are actually only referring to the knee.

So, wait, the thigh is leg, the calf is leg, but the knee isn't???

if the foot is part of the leg, does that mean footfootfoot comes from the Isle of Man?

Leg has a superseding claim to title. So if thigh and knee, or knee and calf, or all three are involved, it is the "leg." But if knee and only knee is involved, then it shall be named the "knee" and not the "leg."

knee shall be the name of it's calling and it's name shall be knee.


I will say knee again to you...if you do not appease me.

rofl

is especially funny for me today as I went on a canoe trip with the 7/8 grade and accidentally verbalized the fart in your general direction quote at an appropriate point which amused many for a long time because the kdi in the canoe who was not related to me knew it and all the other MP stuff.

Is the foot part of the leg? Depends.

During normal everyday usage it is not part of the leg. It's simply along for the ride. The leg ends at the ankle. But during amputation, the doctors will remove the foot too, which means in that situation, it is part of the leg.

When I eat a chicken leg, there is no foot attatched. Then again, when I eat a chicken thigh, there is no leg attatched. Do chickens even have knees?

Anatomically speaking even the medical dictionaries vary:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...m/Leg+(anatomy)

if the leg and foot are attached, then yes

Wow! The dictionary entries are honing in on the calf area! What is going on?!? Was there a "calf-man" on that team or what?

Isn't the calf just the back side of the leg*?


*The lower part of the leg between the knee and ankle.

I have consulted the highest authority, who informs me that:

"The foot bone connected to the leg bone"

So I'd say, no.

Zen, are you really bored?

......searches for a word that takes bore to a new level......

I really think this guy may have the answer for us. We should ask him.

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...postcount=7510

Just don't ask him in person.

But, the question isn't "is the foot alone sufficient to indicate the entire leg?" The question is, essentially, do "the thigh, knee, calf, and foot" (together) all belong to "the leg," or do they belong to two separate groups, "the leg," and "the foot."

This is clearly inclusive of the entire leg, the only part being in question is how far the inclusiveness continues to be in effect; so therefore I fail to see the relevance of your "if only [single body part] is involved" argument.

if you were to encounter a foot amputee, I think you'd probably still view them as aving two legs. but if you encountered a leg amputee, you wouldn't count them as still having two feet. so I think we've reached the abortion question. if the foot cannot survive without the leg, does it have rights which are independant of the rights of the leg? If you believe a fetus is a separate, sacred life, then you must vote for a foot not being part of the leg.....

:lol:

:stickpoke

Foot is part of leg as leg is part of body, grasshopper.

And when you remove $20 from your checking account, you still have a checking account. A "part of" something can be removed.

... as hand is part of arm ... Not!

We need a Godwin's law for mentioning the abortion debate. Let's call it Monster's Proclamation!!!!!11!1!!! If the current topic is likened to the abortion debate, no futher on-topic posting is allowed with the exception of other similes and metaphors

:lol:

I am autonomous
I am autonomous
I am autonomous

How many times do I have to tell you?