An apple contains many seeds, but you don’t call each seed a fruit.
I mean, I knew a strawberry wasn’t a berry, but your counterexample was completely irrelevant.
Edit:
When people downvote but nobody responds, I have no idea what people are downvoting about.
Nothing I said was inaccurate, and it illustrated why their example was inapplicable, so what do downvotes mean here?
I mean, it is totally valid for a layperson to criticize scientific classification since, after all, it is just a definition. Facts derived from definition can be true or false, but just putting something in a box doesn’t make the box true. It’s just the box the thing happened to be put in.
That’d be a really great point, if that was even anywhere close to what I said in the comment that got down voted.
So what am I to take from this reply? That people on Lemmy are functionally illiterate? That they can’t distinguish between criticism of an example with criticism of an argument?
In response to calling the dry fruit that contains a single seed a seed, they gave a counterexample where we clearly don’t call fruits that contain a seed a seed.
You called that irrelevant and rebutted with we also don’t call the seeds inside a fruit fruits. Okay… What? How is that relevant?
I didn’t make my argument clear, for sure.
The initial person called the dry fruit a seed.
Then the other person countered with an example of a fruit with a single seed where you don’t call the whole fruit the seed. But importantly they didn’t establish why the first person should consider those two things the same. The first person simply didn’t accept that the dry fruit was a fruit in the first place, so using another, typical, fruit for example isn’t going to help.
My example was trying (ineffectively) to show that it appears as an apples/orange comparison unless you already understand.
But now, despite explicitly saying I know that a strawberry isn’t a berry in my original reply, I’m being told that I’m disagreeing with science, rather than with their example.
I can admit my feelings get hurt when someone gets mad at me for something I didn’t say.
Can you admit your failure in reading comprehension?
Can you at least point out where you think I said that strawberry “seeds” aren’t the actual fruit, so that I can know how I was unclear about it?
I didn’t mean literally mad. I mean people are telling me something that I’m wrong for something that I didn’t say, and that I went out of my way to make clear I wasn’t saying, and they’re doing it in a belittling way. So yes, my feelings are hurt.
But meanwhile I still didn’t say it, and I made clear I wasn’t saying it, and you’re still being belittling and telling me that’s what I said.
Maybe the problem isn’t that I’m wrong about what a fruit is, and the problem is that you (and whoever else) misread what I wrote. In which case, why are you still telling me I’m wrong about what a fruit is? And if that’s not what you’re doing, then what are you doing?
But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.
I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.
if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.
You reasonably could, though. “Fruit” has different meanings (with significant overlap) when speaking culinarily versus botanically. Corn, for example, is a fruit and a vegetable and a seed and a cereal grain depending on context.
You’re having a different discussion than what I’m trying to make.
Im aware of the difference between botanical and culinary definition. Im aware a strawberry isn’t botanically a berry. Im aware a pumpkin is a berry. I’m aware that raspberries are accessory fruits, that peanuts aren’t nuts, etc.
I’m saying that your peach example isn’t going to illustrate that difference to someone who doesn’t already get it.
An apple contains many seeds, but you don’t call each seed a fruit.
I mean, I knew a strawberry wasn’t a berry, but your counterexample was completely irrelevant.
Edit:
When people downvote but nobody responds, I have no idea what people are downvoting about.
Nothing I said was inaccurate, and it illustrated why their example was inapplicable, so what do downvotes mean here?
You are being downvoted because you argue your personal interpretation against a factual scientific classification.
If the experts in the field have concluded that a tiny fruit that contains a tiny seed is still a fruit, then arguing against it is inaccurate.
Unless you too are an expert in the field and have some substantial arguments otherwise that are more relevant that a gotcha.
I mean, it is totally valid for a layperson to criticize scientific classification since, after all, it is just a definition. Facts derived from definition can be true or false, but just putting something in a box doesn’t make the box true. It’s just the box the thing happened to be put in.
After all, opinions are the most important of all.
That’d be a really great point, if that was even anywhere close to what I said in the comment that got down voted.
So what am I to take from this reply? That people on Lemmy are functionally illiterate? That they can’t distinguish between criticism of an example with criticism of an argument?
In response to calling the dry fruit that contains a single seed a seed, they gave a counterexample where we clearly don’t call fruits that contain a seed a seed.
You called that irrelevant and rebutted with we also don’t call the seeds inside a fruit fruits. Okay… What? How is that relevant?
I didn’t make my argument clear, for sure.
The initial person called the dry fruit a seed.
Then the other person countered with an example of a fruit with a single seed where you don’t call the whole fruit the seed. But importantly they didn’t establish why the first person should consider those two things the same. The first person simply didn’t accept that the dry fruit was a fruit in the first place, so using another, typical, fruit for example isn’t going to help.
My example was trying (ineffectively) to show that it appears as an apples/orange comparison unless you already understand.
But now, despite explicitly saying I know that a strawberry isn’t a berry in my original reply, I’m being told that I’m disagreeing with science, rather than with their example.
That username. Just wow. Okay we’re done here.
And this, kids, is what it looks like when somebody has their feelings hurt about nonsense drama that they created themselves.
I can admit my feelings get hurt when someone gets mad at me for something I didn’t say.
Can you admit your failure in reading comprehension?
Can you at least point out where you think I said that strawberry “seeds” aren’t the actual fruit, so that I can know how I was unclear about it?
Nobody is mad at you. You’re the one mad at other people. It’s all in your own head.
Look here, pedantry is my business.
I didn’t mean literally mad. I mean people are telling me something that I’m wrong for something that I didn’t say, and that I went out of my way to make clear I wasn’t saying, and they’re doing it in a belittling way. So yes, my feelings are hurt.
But meanwhile I still didn’t say it, and I made clear I wasn’t saying it, and you’re still being belittling and telling me that’s what I said.
Maybe the problem isn’t that I’m wrong about what a fruit is, and the problem is that you (and whoever else) misread what I wrote. In which case, why are you still telling me I’m wrong about what a fruit is? And if that’s not what you’re doing, then what are you doing?
“Each containing a single seed inside” does not mean “those are the seeds” and I provided a counter-example to illustrate my point.
Ah I see. That makes a bit more sense.
But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.
I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.
You reasonably could, though. “Fruit” has different meanings (with significant overlap) when speaking culinarily versus botanically. Corn, for example, is a fruit and a vegetable and a seed and a cereal grain depending on context.
You’re having a different discussion than what I’m trying to make.
Im aware of the difference between botanical and culinary definition. Im aware a strawberry isn’t botanically a berry. Im aware a pumpkin is a berry. I’m aware that raspberries are accessory fruits, that peanuts aren’t nuts, etc.
I’m saying that your peach example isn’t going to illustrate that difference to someone who doesn’t already get it.
It means “I’m dumb. There’s a lot of dumb people in this comm. And mods aren’t doing their job”
Edit: see those down votes. Even more dumb people who don’t know what the down vote button is for…