• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Okay, but the ruling is totally sensible inasmuch as it applies to “purposes of tariffs, imports and customs”. Tomatoes by and large aren’t being imported for their botanical value; they’re being used for food. This ruling exists so corporations can’t “um ackshually” their way out of paying their fair share.

    But that’s too sensible; in reality, this unanimous ruling that I never bothered to spend five seconds researching independently (I am very intellectually superior) was just “le Americans uneducated ecksdee”.

    (And before you point it out: yes, an “um ackshually” definition of vegetables includes fruits, although this is using a culinary one. So indeed, the original post can’t even pedant right.)

    Edit: to totally gild the lily, imagine your country adds a tax to crab meat because overfishing for a luxury good is destroying the Earth’s oceans. Someone sells Alaskan king crab, and they go to the courts demanding their taxes back because “um, ackshually, crabs are infraorder Brachyura, but king crabs are nested cladistically inside the hermit crab superfamily”. You would hope the court would tell them to get lost, because for the environmental impact and culinary uses that the bill is targeting, it’s a crab.

      • BenVimes@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Assuming you were aiming for the French phrase for ‘seafood’, I think you meant ‘fruit de mer.’

        ‘Fruit de la mère’ would translate to, ‘fruit of the mother.’

  • kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is dumb, botanically tomatoes are a fruit doesn’t preclude them being vegetables because vegetable isn’t a botanical term at all. Tomatoes are fairly sweet but they have more culinarily in common with vegetables. Nutritionally I’m not positive but it’s a separate issue.

    Regardless the supreme court decision was regarding tariffs/imports/customs which makes sense to classify it simply by the way in which people consume it. People eat tomatoes as a vegetable, just like we eat zucchini and cucumber as vegetables despite them all also being fruit.

    • BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Obviously fruit/vegetable should be broken down into whether or not you can just make a sauce with it.

      Tomatoes: easily broken0 down into a sauce Apples: guess what? saucable

      Zucchini: not easily sauced. Cucumber: don’t even think about it!

      • kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Hilarious but we’re gonna end up with a few weird things like jackfruit and bananas becoming vegetables. I’d also add that apples are only sauceable through maceration which really puts them into the same camp as squash like zucchini, and any root really like carrots or celeriac.

  • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Fruit the botanical term and fruit the culinary term are just not the same word. Similarly to how theory means something different in science and in colloquial speech. That’s just how language works.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      More people ought to learn about the programming language concept of namespaces. Generalize from that and you realize that every domain of discourse has its own namespace of words that have different meanings from those same words outside the domain.

      My favourite is math which has loads of wonderfully generic-sounding terms such as rational, irrational, radical, real, imaginary, complex, group, ring, field, category, set, operator, element, and unit which all have radically different meanings from the everyday senses of those words.

      • jaupsinluggies@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, but then where would we be without all those endless squabbles about X which are easily solved by pointing out that A::X != B::X?

  • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Botanically, there’s no such thing as a vegetable.

    That’s a culinary term, which seems to cover some fruits, some plant roots, some plant stems, some plant leaves, and some plant flowers.While culinary fruits are the other botanical fruits, and a few flowers (figs are weird)

    • Enekk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The legal decision is important for a slew of reasons including taxation, SNAP benefits, etc. The decision was less about science and more about the reality of how tomatoes are used in our society.

    • sandwich.make(bathing_in_bismuth)@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Now I get why some (a ?) states declared pizza a veggie or something like that? Like if vegetable is a culinary term it makes sense you could classify pizza as a vegetable. But like, why the fuck is law declaring what anything is culinary?

  • homura1650@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m going to take this as an opportunity to point out that bees are a type of fish in California.

    • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      You weren’t kidding!

      California enforces many wildlife regulations. CESA, or the California Endangered Species Act, is designed to keep animal and plant life from extinction. The law covers any threatened “bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.”

      Insects weren’t mentioned in the specific act’s wording. However, a separate California regulation legally defines fish as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.”
      So, are bees actually fish? Yes, because all invertebrates are according to California law. The broad definition of fish allows activists to fight for insect survival.
      The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has clarified that “It was not believed necessary to include the term invertebrate in the original legislation because ‘fish’ is defined in the Fish and Game Code to include ‘invertebrates’…”

      Talk about by-the-book!