Aren’t we all just receptacle tissue.
wait, you don’t eat the little things?
Of course not
These are strange times for the berry club. Strange times…
Accessory fruit?? What the hell is that?! What am I?!
This one lives in my head rent free! 🤣
“each containing a single seed inside”
Aka, those are the seeds.
A peach contains a single seed but you don’t call the whole thing a seed. The pips of a strawberry are called “achenes” which is a type of dry fruit. It doesn’t matter at all for general use but it is botanically significant.
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?
“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.
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.
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…
What little things on strawberries?
Someone has a lot of time on their hands.
And strawberry fruits
It sure does
Had*
😅 Now, they’re left with only their choices of how it was spent.
At first glance, I thought this was one of those macrolens images with army men
The red part is the cum and the wee seeds are the sperms. Kewl.
How do I delete someone else’s comment?
Cum is sperm.
cum the whole ejaculate, semen and sperm
Strawberries are a type of berry. They go in a fruit salad, so they’re fruit. Deep in your heart, you know this. Do not believe everything you read on the Internet.
It’s just about which taxonomy (i.e., context) one chooses to use.
Botanically, tomatoes are fruits. But according to culinary taxonomy they’re vegetables (they don’t belong in a fruit salad).
It’s often repeated, but I love the distinction between knowledge and wisdom based on this fact.
Knowledge is to know tomato is a fruit; wisdom is to not put it in a fruit salad.
I saw a variation on this once that added something else as “knowing how to make a tomato-using fruit salad taste good” or somesuch, but I forget what trait they assigned that to.
Charisma is selling a tomato based fruit salad and calling it salsa.
Botanic science is correct (in this, at least FFS), whereas “culinary” taxonomy followed import law that was altered to dodge tariffs… They are not the same. 😅
Botanic science is correct
Oh you sweet, sweet summer child.
To clarify: A lot of well established taxonomy was severly shaken when genetic sequencing was applied en masse, resulting in phylogenetic trees very different from what was thought to be nearly certain. In modern biology, you have different taxonomy systems for different purposes, each using somewhat different justifications (am not a biologist, but related). They are all “wrong” in a sense, hence the joke.
Look, dear ol’ patronizing friendo. My experience is in culinary, not botanical science, and hence the snub at the tariff dodging history of tomatoes’ profit-focused designation as a vegetable (ie. staple vs. luxury), but thanks for playing. Syntax is a bitch, eh?
Didn’t mean to patronise, sorry if it came across that way. I appreciated your joke, and wanted to add another joke about the biological side of things on top
Fair enough. No hard feelings, I hope, and thanks. 🖖🏽
The video “Tomatoes, or How Not To Define Art” (by Ian Danskin, who also does The Alt-Right Playbook) presents this very well: https://youtu.be/XmxIK9p0SNM
I think the seeds are technically classified as nuts.
It’s a little arbitrary but the thickness of the pericarp (shell/husk) is the key difference between a nut and an achene. Strawberries have achenes.
Today I learned! Thanks!
That’s why my local Dairy Queen is starting to sell receptacle tissue milkshakes.
Science has gone too far
Made up my mind, make a new start; Goin to California with an achene in my heart
