Congress Declares Pizza as a Vegetable

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 [its] 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...

[edit]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:

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. 🙁

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.

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:

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 [b]all plantlife. Hence 'vegetation'. All parts of the tomato plant qualify for that. [/B]

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 😐