• PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • Soggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.