Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.metro.us/newyork/life/article/1027265--congress-declares-pizza-a-vegetable-children-s-diets-instantly-get-healthier



Who would've thought that while I've been constantly told during High School I've been getting one step closer to having a heart attack from eating something greasy, I was actually becoming healthy...facepalm

It has tomato sauce on it...


Also I love those people that all smartassy tell you "tomato is a fruit" (high pitched - grating voice) as if that was a scientific fact rather than extremely vague convention...

Big business using it's $$$ to influence congress/politicians? Business as usual.

Isn't this rather like declared pizza a liquid on the basis that it has water in it?

Pizza is a many-faceted wonder: vegetable, fruit, carb and protein. This and water should suffice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It has tomato sauce on it...


Also I love those people that all smartassy tell you "tomato is a fruit" (high pitched - grating voice) as if that was a scientific fact rather than extremely vague convention... *high-pitched, grating voice* Tomato is a fruit! Love me?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also I love those people that all smartassy tell you "tomato is a fruit" (high pitched - grating voice) as if that was a scientific fact rather than extremely vague convention...

Wait, you did not know that a tomato is a fruit, scientifically, but is a vegetable from the culinary perspective?



If you're making the distinction based on "science", yes, tomato is a fruit. If you're going to say "vague convention" to describe the scientific definition, then all of science can be boiled down to "vague conventions" because they all can be boiled down to arbitrary symbolic representations: everything is a set or symbol because it is a creation of humans.



Botanically, any plant that buds a seed that is encased in the ovary (dried or juicy...doesn't matter) is a fruit. That includes beans, cucumbers, and even some nuts like acorns.


But, yes, Pizza can have all food groups:

Grains, dairy, meats, fruits, vegetables. The argument about that is not new and it has been discussed, light-heartedly, for decades.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Botanically, any plant that buds a seed that is encased in the ovary (dried or juicy...doesn't matter) is a fruit. That includes beans, cucumbers, and even some nuts like acorns.
.

Not the plant itself, what it produces, you fruitcake. Cucumbers = fruit. Acorns = nut. Though they're both produced from a plant-based source.

Damn, I just pwned all over your face again. Why do you make it so easy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not the plant itself, what it produces, you fruitcake. Cucumbers = fruit. Acorns = nut. Though they're both produced from a plant-based source.

Damn, I just pwned all over your face again. Why do you make it so easy.


That's what I mean: I did not mean the plant but the fruit that buds from the plant. I edited my post and took out too much.

But, no, an acorn and some nuts ARE fruits, scientifically.

Not all nuts are fruits, but some fruits are nuts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's what I mean: I did not mean the plant but the fruit that buds from the plant. I edited my post and took out too much.

But, no, an acorn and some nuts ARE fruits, scientifically.

Not all nuts are fruits, but some fruits are nuts.

And we can scientifically conclude that you're a nut and a fruit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait, you did not know that a tomato is a fruit, scientifically, but is a vegetable from the culinary perspective?



If you're making the distinction based on "science", yes, tomato is a fruit. If you're going to say "vague convention" to describe the scientific definition, then all of science can be boiled down to "vague conventions" because they all can be boiled down to arbitrary symbolic representations: everything is a set or symbol because it is a creation of humans.



Botanically, any plant that buds a seed that is encased in the ovary (dried or juicy...doesn't matter) is a fruit. That includes beans, cucumbers, and even some nuts like acorns.


But, yes, Pizza can have all food groups:

Grains, dairy, meats, fruits, vegetables. The argument about that is not new and it has been discussed, light-heartedly, for decades.

I'm saying it's vague because we are talking about semantic convention. I am not denying it is a fruit, I am saying it's disingenuous to pretend that it is more or solely correct as opposed to saying "it's a vegetable".

Quite obviously I have been aware of that issue before as I alluded to in my post.

Originally posted by Robtard
And we can scientifically conclude that you're a nut and a fruit.

That's wrong: I did not nut on your fruit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Quite obviously I have been aware of that issue before as I alluded to in my post.

Being aware of the argument and thinking that it is as simple as labeling it as a "vague convention" is not the same thing.

I responded because you posted that it was simply a "vague convention" and made fun of the notion that calling it a fruit is "scientific". So I sought to enlighten you that, yes, it is the correct scientific to label tomatoes as fruits and the "vague convention" argument is a slipper slope.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I responded because you posted that it was simply a "vague convention" and made fun of the notion that calling it a fruit is "scientific". So I sought to enlighten you that, yes, it is the correct scientific label tomatoes and the "vague convention" argument is a slipper slope.

yes, but in the vernacular there are numerous things that lay people wouldn't even think to call fruits that would technically be defined that way

the obsession about tomatoes is pretty ridiculous

lol, if only people had to have an expert knowledge of specific jargon to discuss things

Originally posted by inimalist


lol, if only people had to have an expert knowledge of specific jargon to discuss things

There would be a decrease in internet traffic by 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999%

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's wrong: I did not nut on your fruit.



Being aware of the argument and thinking that it is as simple as labeling it as a "vague convention" is not the same thing.

I responded because you posted that it was simply a "vague convention" and made fun of the notion that calling it a fruit is "scientific". So I sought to enlighten you that, yes, it is the correct scientific to label tomatoes as fruits and the "vague convention" argument is a slipper slope.

I suppose I should have been more clear in stating that I am annoyed with claiming it as a "scientific fact" as somehow trumping culinary and day to day usage. As you said yourself, it's both..."fruits" and "vegetables" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Originally posted by Robtard
There would be a decrease in internet traffic by 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999%

but that billionth of a percentile would be astounding

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but in the vernacular there are numerous things that lay people wouldn't even think to call fruits that would technically be defined that way

I think that was one of my points, wasn't it (i.e. acorns)?




Originally posted by inimalist
the obsession about tomatoes is pretty ridiculous

I never heard the argument being made for tomatoes, around these parts: it was always cucumbers.

Technically, strawberries are not fruits because the seeds are not INSIDE the ovary. awesome

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, if only people had to have an expert knowledge of specific jargon to discuss things

Isn't "appeal to expert" a logical fallacy, anyway? 313



Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose I should have been more clear in stating that I am annoyed with claiming it as a "scientific fact" as somehow trumping culinary and day to day usage. As you said yourself, it's both..."fruits" and "vegetables" are not mutually exclusive terms.

When does scientific fact not trump incorrectly used, but pervasive, symbols?


"Are these cicadas or locusts?"

No matter the vernacular, the correct answer is the one defined in taxonomy.

Originally posted by dadudemon

When does scientific fact not trump incorrectly used, but pervasive, symbols?

See, that's what I mean, it's not incorrectly used. Tomatoes are ALSO vegetables.

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, that's what I mean, it's not incorrectly used. Tomatoes are ALSO vegetables.

No, that's not correct and it never will be. Sorry, them's the shiiits. That's how it works out.

The culinary discipline is using it wrong. Additionally, the people who I see CORRECTING the use the most are not botanists: they are culinary artists like chefs. Sure that's anecdotal, but I do not think you are giving real culinary professionals enough credit: they probably know better than most that they are not actually vegetables.




When you go to the store and you see fruits in your vegetbale section, you need to think: "Poor common people: mislabeling their botanicals" not "oh...well...people have arbitary lay symbols and no one is technically incorrect".

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's not correct and it never will be. Sorry, them's the shiiits. That's how it works out.

The culinary discipline is using it wrong. Additionally, the people who I see CORRECTING the use the most are not botanists: they are culinary artists like chefs. Sure that's anecdotal, but I do not think you are giving real culinary professionals enough credit: they probably know better than most that they are not actually vegetables.




When you go to the store and you see fruits in your vegetbale section, you need to think: "Poor common people: mislabeling their botanicals" not "oh...well...people have arbitary lay symbols and no one is technically incorrect".

You are wrong about that. The culinary profession isn't using it wrong, because they wanted that term for edible non-sweet plant products. If you define a term that's how it is, that's how language works. The term vegetable is not opposed to the term fruit as it is in it's scientific definition, you may make a case that it is opposed to the definition of sweet "fruits" as used in layman terms, but that's besides the point.

If the definition of vegetable was "not a fruit", sure, but it isn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think that was one of my points, wasn't it (i.e. acorns)?

pfft, you expect me to read a thread before commenting?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I never heard the argument being made for tomatoes, around these parts: it was always cucumbers.

Technically, strawberries are not fruits because the seeds are not INSIDE the ovary. awesome

its something dumb people I've known throughout my life like to chime off about

unless you are a botanist, the difference is essentially moot.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Isn't "appeal to expert" a logical fallacy, anyway? 313

not really, one would expect an expert to have a knowledgeable position on an issue. you could also frame it as "appeal to empiricism" to call all science a logical fallacy.

saying "this person is an expert therefore this is the absolute truth" would be, but that is more an appeal to authority, where you are just replacing the "absolute and unmovable" authority with the word "expert".

Otherwise, you would essentially be saying that any citation in a paper is a logical fallacy, or even referring to one's own past work would be a fallacy, as you would be the expert.

So if I have a meat lovers its still a vegetable?

Originally posted by The Nuul
So if I have a meat lovers its still a vegetable?

Only if you eat it with your ass, ala South Park.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong about that.

No, you're wrong about me being wrong about that and you're wrong about the position I said you were wrong with.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The culinary profession isn't using it wrong, because they wanted that term for edible non-sweet plant products.

You're wrong about that. Some probably used the terms correctly and used it correct and the term grew, with the laymen, to mean something sweet. Additionally, I hear chefs and the like refer to them properly: tubers, flowers, seeds, and so forth. So, still, you're still not giving them enough credit. A professional educated and trained chef probably knows more about botany than you and I put together.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you define a term that's how it is, that's how language works.

To the common man, that's how it works. And now you've instituted the same slipper slope argument I pointed out, already: everything is arbitrary symbols and nothing is factual.

dur

That's not what you intend to do but that is the eventual path your line of reasoning leads to.



Originally posted by Bardock42
The term vegetable is not opposed to the term fruit as it is in it's scientific definition, you may make a case that it is opposed to the definition of sweet "fruits" as used in layman terms, but that's besides the point.

AHA! I got you to admit fault.

You just conceded the argument: "...term fruit as it is in scientific definition". The scientific definition is the fact. The layman definition is sometimes wrong and shows the evolution of language rather than a fact. This is the idea you just acknowledged and, therefore, you have conceded the point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the definition of vegetable was "not a fruit", sure, but it isn't.

The factual definition of a fruit can overlap with the factual definition of a vegetable. Is your mind blown?


To various people around the world, a fruit is not a fruit to everyone. Some fruits among a people are another people's vegetable. This is why it is not a fact: it is a lay label. The factual "label" would the scientific one because it does not change. You can't have an objective fact unless the fact is the same no matter where you go: luckily, people like you do not rule the scientific world or else we would not get any work done.

Originally posted by inimalist
its something dumb people I've known throughout my life like to chime off about

Just like "derpy, triptophan makes you sleepy and turkey has it...derpy do...that's what you get tired after eating your derpy on thanksderpygiving"

Originally posted by inimalist
unless you are a botanist, the difference is essentially moot.

Or a biologist. Or a geneticist. Or a taxonomist. Or an ecologist. Or an environmentalist. Or a bio-chemist (that works with botanicals). Or a science teacher or professor. Or an international chef. You get the point...



Originally posted by inimalist
not really, one would expect an expert to have a knowledgeable position on an issue. you could also frame it as "appeal to empiricism" to call all science a logical fallacy.

No, appealing to an expert's opinion to solve your arguments is a logical fallacy. You do not have to be an expert to know about a study but you have to use the logical fallacy to have an "expert" come in and solve your argument: that expert is not necessarily correct.

Originally posted by inimalist
saying "this person is an expert therefore this is the absolute truth" would be, but that is more an appeal to authority, where you are just replacing the "absolute and unmovable" authority with the word "expert".


Same thing: appeal to authority/appeal to expert.

Some people say appeal to expert, like me.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23540903

Mostly because I come from the legal side of things and not the philosphy side of things.

Originally posted by inimalist
Otherwise, you would essentially be saying that any citation in a paper is a logical fallacy, or even referring to one's own past work would be a fallacy, as you would be the expert.

Sure, if that was my point, but it wasn't.

Additionally, yes, you can still commit an appeal to expert even if they are literally an expert on a subject: they may not get their results or data correct when voicing their opinion on the topic you've asked about. You'd, rather, cite their study. That seems like an arbitrary distinction but is it really? Do you remember every last fact from every single study you've every conducted? Obviously not. You'd cite the results.

Sorry, I'm not doing long winded arguments anymore, I just want to say that I don't feel you have in any way disproven any of the things I said in my last post and that I stand by that, even though I shall not argue with you further.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sorry, I'm not doing long winded arguments anymore, I just want to say that I don't feel you have in any way disproven any of the things I said in my last post and that I stand by that, even though I shall not argue with you further.

It's okay: you already conceded the point.


It boils down to this:

You say that it is a fact that tomatoes are both fruits and vegetables and that it can be both based on language.

I say that it is a fact that some people call tomatoes vegetables but the only "real" fact is that they are fruits and anyone calling them vegetables is technically incorrect.


Final conclusion: to keep things understood in common language, call them vegetables if that's "what the Romans do." Call them fruits at every last chance you get, though...because being correct is the best way to be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It has tomato sauce on it...


Also I love those people that all smartassy tell you "tomato is a fruit" (high pitched - grating voice) as if that was a scientific fact rather than extremely vague convention...

Anyone who gets annoying with that shit gets challenged to put tomatoes in their fruit salad, and if they don't eat it or refuse, they get called out for being full of faeces.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Anyone who gets annoying with that shit gets challenged to put tomatoes in their fruit salad, and if they don't eat it or refuse, they get called out for being full of faeces.

Why not?!?!?!

http://www.not-just-recipes.com/tomato-fruit-salad.html



And some tomatoes are really sweet. I grew Sun Gold's one year, in my parents garden (as a teen). They were awesome eaten cold, raw...like grapes. Not as sweet, but still fruity delicious.

I usually eat tomatoes raw, by themselves. Cucumber the same thing.

So, if one insists on tomatoes being a fruit, I do believe that one should be able to eat them together with strawberries, bananas, grapes, mangos, apples, melons, pears, peaches, plumbs, pineapples and oranges all mixed together. Since people insist it's a fruit, put it in a fruit salad. Also, not just cherry tomatoes, put the regular ones in, chopped, like all other fruit...let the tomato juice mix with the rest.
Putting cherry tomatoes doesn't really do much...being all tiny and individual.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I usually eat tomatoes raw, by themselves. Cucumber the same thing.

So, if one insists on tomatoes being a fruit, I do believe that one should be able to eat them together with strawberries, bananas, grapes, mangos, apples, melons, pears, peaches, plumbs, pineapples and oranges all mixed together. Since people insist it's a fruit, put it in a fruit salad. Also, not just cherry tomatoes, put the regular ones in, chopped, like all other fruit...let the tomato juice mix with the rest.
Putting cherry tomatoes doesn't really do much...being all tiny and individual.

I wouldn't like the taste even if you removed the tomato. Mangos, melons, and oranges make other fruits taste bad to me.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I usually eat tomatoes raw, by themselves. Cucumber the same thing.

So, if one insists on tomatoes being a fruit, I do believe that one should be able to eat them together with strawberries, bananas, grapes, mangos, apples, melons, pears, peaches, plumbs, pineapples and oranges all mixed together. Since people insist it's a fruit, put it in a fruit salad. Also, not just cherry tomatoes, put the regular ones in, chopped, like all other fruit...let the tomato juice mix with the rest.
Putting cherry tomatoes doesn't really do much...being all tiny and individual.


Believe it or not, some people put lots of fruits all in their fruit salad: people in California like to do that.

They put in mangos, pecans (a fruit, technically), tomatoes, oranges, lemons, and so forth.

Then they mix it with vegetables: lettuce, greens, and cabbage.



So there are people that go to town with "proper" fruits in their salads. Drizzle on some cranberry balsamic vinaigrette. mmmmm


Man, now I want a delicious salad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's okay: you already conceded the point.


It boils down to this:

You say that it is a fact that tomatoes are both fruits and vegetables and that it can be both based on language.

I say that it is a fact that some people call tomatoes vegetables but the only "real" fact is that they are fruits and anyone calling them vegetables is technically incorrect.


Final conclusion: to keep things understood in common language, call them vegetables if that's "what the Romans do." Call them fruits at every last chance you get, though...because being correct is the best way to be.

Here, maybe this will make you finally understand the issue:

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/Bardock42/VegetableFruitVenn.png

Originally posted by dadudemon
Believe it or not, some people put lots of fruits all in their fruit salad: people in California like to do that.

They put in mangos, pecans (a fruit, technically), tomatoes, oranges, lemons, and so forth.

Then they mix it with vegetables: lettuce, greens, and cabbage.



So there are people that go to town with "proper" fruits in their salads. Drizzle on some cranberry balsamic vinaigrette. mmmmm


Man, now I want a delicious salad. Wendy's Mandarin Orange Salad ...

The argument that a tomato can only be called a fruit has several flaws. There are three important perspectives.

1. Possibly the least important but still worth noting- tomatoes are legally vegetables in the US; the Supreme Court ruled that despite how it is used botanically, the common definition was more relevant.

2. The assumption has been made by some that just because botanists gave 'fruit' a particular definition that makes it the only correct one. That is a very odd view to take. It may apply to some concepts that science effectively invented, though even then it is linguistically debatable, but in this case there is no authority to it at all. The term 'fruit' existed before the modern science of botany developed and did not have that botanical meaning. That being so, the meaning botanists now give it is perfectly valid but not actually MORE valid than any other widely used definition. Saying 'it is the definition a branch of science uses therefore it is the only correct way to use the word' is completely inappropriate in this sense. Words have multiple meanings in different cultures and contexts. This is one of them. To say that the term as used in science trumps all others is troubling.

3. bardock's claim that a tomato can be classed as both fruit and vegetable was denied but no reason has been given as to why this should be so. This is because no scientific definition of 'vegetable' has been given in order to rule it out; there has been another assumption that what scientists call fruits they then exclude from calling vegetables.

This is untrue. In fact there is no real scientific definition of vegetable other than all plantlife. Hence 'vegetation'. All parts of the tomato plant qualify for that.

Who the F cares if a tomato is a fruit or veggie. Just eat the damn thing, enjoy it and move on. People just want to nitpick to feel important.

Originally posted by The Nuul
Who the F cares if a tomato is a fruit or veggie. Just eat the damn thing, enjoy it and move on. People just want to nitpick to feel important. QFT

People QQing over tomatoes is funny.

If you can't get fat unhealthy kids to eat properly, might as well move the goalposts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Here, maybe this will make you finally understand the issue:

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/Bardock42/VegetableFruitVenn.png

The chart makes a flaw...a major one: they are objectively invalid if they contradict the scientific definition.

This is part of the reason we have "science" to begin with: to create a standardized, objective, system and make objective information (as much as possible).

Also, strawberries are not fruit by the correct definition, Bardz. You'd need to recreate that chart. That's not the only mistake, either. Ugh. There's just too much wrong. lol

Just admit that you want to hold on to your peasant definitions and you know you're wrong. I can deal with your argument just boiling down to sentimentality.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
The argument that a tomato can only be called a fruit has several flaws. There are three important perspectives.

1. Possibly the least important but still worth noting- tomatoes are legally vegetables in the US; the Supreme Court ruled that despite how it is used botanically, the common definition was more relevant.

2. The assumption has been made by some that just because botanists gave 'fruit' a particular definition that makes it the only correct one. That is a very odd view to take. It may apply to some concepts that science effectively invented, though even then it is linguistically debatable, but in this case there is no authority to it at all. The term 'fruit' existed before the modern science of botany developed and did not have that botanical meaning. That being so, the meaning botanists now give it is perfectly valid but not actually MORE valid than any other widely used definition. Saying 'it is the definition a branch of science uses therefore it is the only correct way to use the word' is completely inappropriate in this sense. Words have multiple meanings in different cultures and contexts. This is one of them. To say that the term as used in science trumps all others is troubling.

3. bardock's claim that a tomato can be classed as both fruit and vegetable was denied but no reason has been given as to why this should be so. This is because no scientific definition of 'vegetable' has been given in order to rule it out; there has been another assumption that what scientists call fruits they then exclude from calling vegetables.

This is untrue. In fact there is no real scientific definition of vegetable other than all plantlife. Hence 'vegetation'. All parts of the tomato plant qualify for that.

Your arguments are invalid and I'll show you why number by number.

1. Laws are not inexorable or even objectively correct in their assertions. That much is obvious. The argument from "its a law" is wrong from the beginning.

2. Just because science has taken a common word and objectively definied it, does not mean it is magically invalid. That's the premise of the entire discussion. Pretending that the common definition is more valid than the objectively defined defition is a dishonest position: they are not equal and should not be considered equals in an adult discussion. What you're doing is pretending both are equals rather than one being more valid than the other. That's not the case, either. One is definitely more valid than the other.


3. His assertion that it can be both a fruit and a vegetable was not denied. You actually missed the entire point of the discussion if you are concluding this. It has been readily acknowledged that some definitions of tomatoes make them vegetables. Next, you're just plain wrong about no scientific defintion about vegetables.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5785983_botanical-definition-fruit-vegetable.html

But if that's not enough:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scientific+definition+of+vegetable



I'll skip straight to the end of this discussion with you before it leads to the inevitable conclusion. There's no need to issue a warning: I'll stop talking about the topic.


Originally posted by The Nuul
Who the F cares if a tomato is a fruit or veggie. Just eat the damn thing, enjoy it and move on. People just want to nitpick to feel important.

But that misses the point of the thread:

Originally posted by BackFire
If you can't get fat unhealthy kids to eat properly, might as well move the goalposts.

Tomato is a fruit.

Even 5th graders know this fact

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Tomato is a fruit.

Even 5th graders know this fact

I agree...we are taught science as children. It's just that...some people think the layman definitions trump.


They do...but only in the context of keeping things understandable to the ignorant. If you know the difference and you're not a chef (or doing something that would require your profession recognize it as a vegetable to those around you), there's really no reason to wallow in the ignorance. It just doesn't make sense to do that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The chart makes a flaw...a major one: they are objectively invalid if they contradict the scientific definition.

This is part of the reason we have "science" to begin with: to create a standardized, objective, system and make objective information (as much as possible).

Also, strawberries are not fruit by the correct definition, Bardz. You'd need to recreate that chart. That's not the only mistake, either. Ugh. There's just too much wrong. lol

Just admit that you want to hold on to your peasant definitions and you know you're wrong. I can deal with your argument just boiling down to sentimentality.



Oh...my...god...you know so little about this yet you keep claiming authority.

Strawberries are most definitely fruit (they are not even on the chart though), maybe you meant they aren't "berries" which is sort of correct. Or maybe you meant that Tomatoes aren't berries? But...that too is wrong, they are. Please, just stop writing for a minute and read up on that stuff, you don't even understand the basics of the sole definition you accept.

And that doesn't even come close to discussing the real issue, since I don't deny the scientific definition, I just say that, in language, other definitions are perfectly cromulent as well.

The very first step you'd have to take, would be to prove that the scientific definition of the word "fruit" and the culinary definition of the word "vegetable" can't overlap (hint: You can't prove that cause they do).

Alright, that's seriously it for me now though, there's no reason to continue until you learn a bit more about it.

Originally posted by BackFire
If you can't get fat unhealthy kids to eat properly, might as well move the goalposts.

It doesnt matter if its a fruit or veggie, that fat kid wont eat it anyways. The kid or whomever will try it at first then decide if they like it or not.

I guess Icecream will be next to be declared a Vegetable!

Being a retired school teacher, we should not give kids anything more than soup and sandwiches, why weigh them down with all that stuff that will have them bounce off the walls.

After all, it is the taxpayers money, keep the expenses to a minimum.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I guess Icecream will be next to be declared a Vegetable!

Originally posted by JodiJeff
Being a retired school teacher, we should not give kids anything more than soup and sandwiches, why weigh them down with all that stuff that will have them bounce off the walls.

After all, it is the taxpayers money, keep the expenses to a minimum.

Why even give them sandwiches. Lets just give them soup. Ingredients are expensive though, lets just give them hot water. But lets not heat it up, heat costs money.

And fresh water is a precious resource in many places, so just give them a cup of the tastiest air.

Originally posted by JodiJeff
Being a retired school teacher, we should not give kids anything more than soup and sandwiches, why weigh them down with all that stuff that will have them bounce off the walls.

After all, it is the taxpayers money, keep the expenses to a minimum. You do realise that pizza is pretty much the same as a sandwich?... Bread with topping/filling.

Also, the idea that any food makes children "bounce off the walls" is completely unfounded, unless of course it actually contains a stimulant like caffine.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My Cracked alarm is going off.
I have no idea what this means. srug

This is why we have ellected officials. To make such important decisionsw like this. Fricken pizza...duh veggie group? WTF? No, it's totally carbs...hmm, but basil would make it veggie. lol Oooo tomato sauce..now it's a real veggie. lol

Next time I'll remember how I voted.,(dumb Americans)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh...my...god...you know so little about this yet you keep claiming authority.

Wow, you're raging over this? Dude, it's just me: Dominic. You know I'm just a pushover IRL. There's no reason to rage about this. I have not claimed any personal authority, by the way.



Originally posted by Bardock42
Strawberries are most definitely fruit (they are not even on the chart though), maybe you meant they aren't "berries" which is sort of correct. Or maybe you meant that Tomatoes aren't berries? But...that too is wrong, they are. Please, just stop writing for a minute and read up on that stuff, you don't even understand the basics of the sole definition you accept.




Calm down, take a step back, and then realize how in the world I came up with "Strawberries".

Your chart combines science and common definitions but only defines one of them as "common".

Additionally, strawberries, by the common man, are berries so even your incorrect assumption of where I'm placing in strawberries, is wrong.

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/lowcarbsuperfoods/a/berries.htm

It is not as though I am making it up.

You would need to go back through your chart, adjust where your overlaps are, and label what each section is: science and/or common. You would probably need two categories for each, by the way.

And how many people do you know that, using common labels, consider a pumpkin a sweet fruit? It is a "gourd" and considered by most common folk to be a vegetable because it isn't sweet. Hell, some make it into a combo with other "vegetables" in a vegetable juice.


Originally posted by Bardock42
And that doesn't even come close to discussing the real issue, since I don't deny the scientific definition, I just say that, in language, other definitions are perfectly cromulent as well.

I agree that in common language, they are accepted. That's not the problem: the problem IS the common language. Not whether or not they are acceptable in common language. This is why we had to come up with specific definitions: to supersede the common usage conflicts: i.e. avocados.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The very first step you'd have to take, would be to prove that the scientific definition of the word "fruit" and the culinary definition of the word "vegetable" can't overlap (hint: You can't prove that cause they do).

Well, no. Because every chef I've known knows the proper and common definitions for the food they cook with much better than any other group I've come across (I have only known one botanist, personally...she died...bless her old soul ). Like I pointed out, they know better than most. They are stuck with using the layman terms because their primary customer is a layman. In fact, the first time I heard about cucumbers being a fruit was on a cooking show when I was a weeee laddy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Alright, that's seriously it for me now though, there's no reason to continue until you learn a bit more about it.

Actually, I cannot learn anymore about it in the context of this conversation. Sure, I could learn for ages about plant life, but that's not what this is about. As you can tell, I knew more about this than you did and I even corrected you twice in this single discussion.


However, looking at your chart, you do allow for some berries to be grouped as sweet AND vegetables. Based on that, strawberries would fit in their in their proper common place IF you label which sections are science and which are common labels. Then you'd have to tell us which culture/people you are using the common label for (please stick to American and English... )


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And fresh water is a precious resource in many places, so just give them a cup of the tastiest air.

Please, sir, may I have some more?



Originally posted by §P0oONY
I have no idea what this means. srug

He's making fun of you for being born in the 80s and being black: he thinks your on crack.

trololololololoo.lololololl!!!

Oh, you are just saying the chart is vague, not wrong...yeah, sure, you shouldn't use the word "wrong" though, that means something else (there's still no strawberries anywhere on the chart, btw, so just relax)

But c'mon, just stop dodging and admit that on the point you were wrong, you keep digging that hole deeper, man.


Though maybe we should get back to the congress, for example, this here is apparently the schedule of the congress, I read this somewhere online, but it seems legit:


11/17: Is pizza a vegetable?
11/18: Are squids ticklish?
11/19: How cool are magnets?
11/20: Who would win in a fight, Destiny’s Child or TLC?
11/21: Does anybody actually donate to Wikipedia?
11/22: Are foxes faster than dogs?
11/23: Wouldn’t it be neat if we all had go-karts instead of desks?

Originally posted by Bardock42
1.11/17: Is pizza a vegetable?
2. 11/18: Are squids ticklish?
3. 11/19: How cool are magnets?
4. 11/20: Who would win in a fight, Destiny’s Child or TLC?
5. 11/21: Does anybody actually donate to Wikipedia?
6. 11/22: Are foxes faster than dogs?
7. 11/23: Wouldn’t it be neat if we all had go-karts instead of desks?
1. Pizza can be all things to all people, just not all the time.
2. Just behind the eyes (ie, toward the tailfin).
3. Very. But for a change, put them in little, plastic, monochromatic TIE fighters instead of dogs.
4. DC. The Thighs of Beyonce are nothin' t'mess wif.
5. Are any of the cofounders hawt?
6. Faster, smarter, prettier.
7. Pfft that. I want a Tron Lightcycle.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, you are just saying the chart is vague, not wrong...yeah, sure, you shouldn't use the word "wrong" though, that means something else (there's still no strawberries anywhere on the chart, btw, so just relax)

Nah, wrong. And I already pointed out that strawberries are considered berries for the same reason tomatos are considered vegetables...the very position you are defending.

Your chart only defines one as scientific and one as common...the rest are undefinid and I pointed out where pumpkins were wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But c'mon, just stop dodging and admit that on the point you were wrong, you keep digging that hole deeper, man.

Nah: I wasn't wrong.

I haven't been wrong about anything, so far. Not even a little. It is not as though you disagree with me, either. It's just that you put more weight into the incorrect use of the word.

really??? white flour

This is a little like lowering standards and making tests/classes easier to help raise grades in school. Sure, you've improved the grades, but the kids will be dumber as a result. Likewise, you can call pizza a vegetable, but it's still gonna make your ass fat.