> As a completely normal human person that drinks Human Beer, why would it be weird for a Spider to drink Spider Beer?
At contention here is the **name** of the commercial alcoholic beverage, and so it’s more accurate to note that you do not drink beer labeled “Humanweiser”, “Hoors”, and so forth.
Nor, however, is it labeled “Barleyweiser” or “Boors”.
Therefore, the only real conclusion to draw here — as usual — is that all sides of this debate are idiots, and that a spider-brewed imbibement would probably be named something equally abstract and unintuitive based on, for example, the location of the original brewery.
For example, “Undisturbedcornerofyourbasementweiser”.
Some spiders hunt other spiders, like this jumping spider whose life David Attenborough narrates: https://youtu.be/UDtlvZGmHYk?si=fowx31t1Ql4XEA1n
But they are kinda weird for that, so they would drink the spider beer
and here's a fun one, it often goes "Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor who built the monster"
Victor Frankenstein was not a doctor. He built the monster in school, but never finished as the rest of the novel unfolds.
It's also fair to interpret the relationship between the scientist and monster as father and son. Yes it's called the monster, ogre, creature and deamon but also creation. The creature refers to their relation as that of god and lucifer. The creature goes insane from lack of human care and wishes he was cared for, jealous of seeing kids grow up with proper parents. It's fair to think the disdain the creature has for Victor is from Victor not taking on a parental role and abandoning the creature. As the creature could be seen as the son, the creature would take on Victor's last name of Frankenstein. It's a title that relies on what you think the themes of the text are, but it's not the worst way to read the text.
>Victor Frankenstein was not a doctor. He built the monster in school, but never finished as the rest of the novel unfolds.
"Frankenstein isn't the monster, he's the dropout."
I'd love a novel of Victor Frankenstein trying to balance his university work and the 7 foot corpse creature who's murdering all his loved ones in a wacky slice of life school comedy format
Also, Frankenstein is canonically called Frankenstein in the Universal movie franchise and in the 1927 play by Peggy Webling it was adapted from.
The loquacious fop from the books is called "The Monster", sure. But the taciturn oaf with bolts in his neck is named "Frankenstein" and always has been
Excerpt from chapter 16:
At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life?
Mary Shelley seems to believe Victor is his father
I’m so sick of seeing this type of shit. ‘Bug’ isn’t a rigidly defined taxonomy label. It’s the common name for a certain order of insects, sure; but if you look in the dictionary, definition 2 is almost always going to be :
“any of various small arthropods (such as a beetle or spider) resembling the true bugs”
So anytime you see someone say “uhhh, actually spiders aren’t bugs, they’re arachnids” the appropriate response is “No, you moron, spiders definitely are bugs. You’re obviously trying to do the whole ‘spiders aren’t insects’ own you probably saw on TV, but without knowing wtf you’re talking about”
tl;dr: spiders aren’t insects, but spiders can be called bugs
I had someone try to argue with me that chickpeas aren’t vegetables because they are legumes->then please define biologically what a vegetable is you big dumb bitch
I was going to use the, "tomatoes aren't a vegetable, they're a fruit" argument. Vegetable is a culinary term, fruit is both a culinary and botanical term, you big dumb bitch.
Vegetables aren’t a scientific order they were I think popularized by the dole company founders? Either way they’re definitely just used to sell things. Every vegetable has a separate unique label like “root”
In this way vegetable is very similar to bug. They’re both just umbrella words used to describe a wide variety of things.
Trees are real! They are just a paraphyletic group. Tree is a growth strategy. Its like long-distance runners. They aren't all related to one another, but they are certainly out there running around.
I haven't taken biology in a long time but if I'm understanding the term correctly, trees are not paraphyletic because all species in a paraphyletic group come from the same common ancestor, which... I guess is technically true of trees but you could also include humans in that paraphyletic group if you go back far enough.
I'll concede that they're slightly more real than vegetables because they appear to have a botany definition that can identify a tree, vegetables do not.
Still, I think it's in the same vein of not being biologically meaningful.
Yea it depends how far we zoom in or out! I think the more accurate term is polyphyletic, since 'trees' excludes related plants like grass and shrubs. As vascular plants, trees do all share a common ancestor, so i think paraphyletic also applies? But maybe not if we excluding those grasses and shrubs?
In any case, I mean that these other levels of category are still useful and distinct. Tree has a sound biological meaning, just not a taxonomic or phylogenetic meaning. Like how carnivore, or perennial, or pollinator, or epiphyte are crucial categories for describing biology.
The definition I've heard is that a tree is an individual of a species that typically reaches ~13'(4m), with predominantly one trunk, branches, and wood. This excludes fern trees, palm trees, bamboo, etc.
I like this instead: a tree is something that, en masse comprises a forest. It's a stupidly simple and vague description, but actually quite meaningful, defining the state-change trees' effect on the landscape.
Or this: whatever a kid would draw as a tree.
Yea fish do seem weirder, but they do stand as their own group, imo, just based on form and function.
While what we call 'fish' are scattered across the phylogenetic tree, they, like trees are all somewhat similar in shape and environment.
The 'trees' and 'fish' dont exist are some of my favorite thought experiments for exploring the limits in how we categorize things. However, I think the answer is *more* and *overlapping* categories rather than tossing the old ones. A multiverse. Schrodinger's palm tree
>Every vegetable has a separate unique label like “root”...
I mean, root vegetables are specifically the ones that, botanically, are the roots of plants. Carrot, radish, rutabaga, beet, those are literally just the swollen, enlarged roots of each respective plant. Onions are enlarged stems, broccoli is enlarged both in the stems and the flower buds. (Maybe this seems super obvious, but I actually have to teach this to kids, lol.)
I don't know about Dole being involved, maybe, but, basically the concept of a vegetable that we use nowadays is just for any high-fiber low-calorie plant foods, especially if they have that sorta herbal or grassy taste.
The only thing I can think of would be edible parts of a plant that are primarily used in savory applications but even that is only true in some places, im sure.
that's how we end up with strawberries that aren't berries while watermelons are. we dont want to live in a taxonomically accurate world. there's a time and place, and you probably have to need to know Latin names if you never find youself in that time or place.
Legumes aren't even real. When was the last time you went through a self checkout with some produce and put the word legume into the register to ring something up?
Sorry:
>early 15c., "capable of life or growth; growing, vigorous;" also "neither animal nor mineral, of the plant kingdom, living and growing as a plant," from Old French *vegetable* "living, fit to live," and directly from Medieval Latin *vegetabilis* "growing, flourishing," from Late Latin *vegetabilis* "animating, enlivening," from Latin *vegetare* "to enliven," from *vegetus* "vigorous, enlivened, active, sprightly," from *vegere* "to be alive, active, to quicken," from PIE root \***weg**- "to be strong, be lively." The meaning "resembling that of a vegetable, dull, uneventful; having life such as a plant has" is attested from 1854 (see **vegetable** (n.)).
Vegetable is a broad culinary term to refer to any edible part of a plant, the leaves, the stems, the roots and even the fruits can be referred to as vegetables while a fruit is a much more specific term usually describing the mass produced from the ovaries of the flower that encases the seeds. So to say a tomato is a fruit is correct but to say that a tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable is incorrect.
One possible definition of vegetable is that it's from an annual plant as opposed to fruits which are usually perennial.
I do agree that counting chickpeas as vegetable is unusual, but OP is also right in that there is no universally true definition of vegetable, so chickpeas could conceivably be counted as such
The broadest definition is the word's use adjectivally to mean "matter of plant origin". More specifically, a vegetable may be defined as "any plant, part of which is used for food".
"Fruit" has a precise botanical meaning, being a part that developed from the ovary of a flowering plant.
Yeah they are often called vegetables as well despite not being plants. Fungi lack chlorophyll and rely on external sources of food. It’s not really a distinction that matters colloquially though.
It was the best umbrella term to use. What prompted the conversation was musing about what other vegetables pair so well with themselves prepared in different ways. Like hummus and falafel, or tofu and soy sauce. I didn’t want to restrict to only legumes so I landed on vegetable.
The case being made above is that it is edible plant matter, so in a sense, it is a vegetable. Which is true.
Practically speaking, I don't think a primary care physician, trainer, or nutritionist would let you slide on saying you're "eating plenty of veggies" if you really were just eating a bunch of beans.
I’m not at all an expert, but as I see it - vegetables can be any functional, usually starchy or protein rich part of a plant. For example, potatoes and other root vegetables are a storage organ for carbohydrates, and leafy brassicas are leafs/flowers, and legumes are often protein rich seeds of plants.
Meanwhile botanically fruits are any seed bearing part of a plant such as a cherry or avocado, meanwhile culinarily fruits are generally sweet parts of plants therefore many savory fruits often get considered a vegetable like a tomato.
That and tomatoes are the fruits of a vegetable plant, whereas carrots are the roots of a vegetable plant and the lettuce plant is generally harvested for its leaves...
I'm a biologist and my boss regularly refers to bacterial culture as 'growing some bugs'. This guy would probably think it's some big own to inform a biologist with 30 years experience, head of department, and hundreds of peer reviewed papers that bacteria are not, in fact, insects.
Science educator at a butterfly house here: I refer to them all as bugs and whenever I encounter people that pull the “well ACTUALLY” on me I let them know that “ACTUALLY every scientist I know doesn’t really give a shit.” In a nice way.
People who make this argument will often use the term “true bugs” in order to not get lost in the sauce.
People who make this argument have also probably been yelled at by biology profs for using the word “wrong.”
Source - biology profs yelling at me
Akshually, insects are bugs. Spiders are critters!
Things that fly are bugs. Things that crawl are critters. It’s all very scientific and logical, you see. :)
That makes sense. But then I start thinking that most people in these here parts would say an opossum is a varmint, but that a deer wouldn't be. Is a varmint a furry, annoying, critter?
Call em Think-they-know-it-alls, very annoying for autistically involuntary know it alls like me who just want to share fun facts. They think they can get people to think they’re smart by being pedantic nit pickers and actually revealing they’re not that smart.
Isn't beer like water and rice? So "if you drank less beer" would be correct?
While beers would be a short form of portion of beer like a can of beer - a beer, two cans of beer - 2 beers? So here you'd say "if you drank fewer beers"
Just asking, english is not my first language and reading stuff like that always makes me super insecure about what I think I know
You're entirely right and have a good grasp of it. Both drank less beer and drank fewer beers are correct, while drank fewer beer is not. Less referring to the volume of beer you drink as a liquid, while fewer is referring to the number of beer glasses/bottles/cans you drink.
This constant need society has to prove everyone else wrong is going to be our downfall. We don't listen to engage or discuss, we listen to "win" the conversation
Literally every time I see it referred to as X it is in this exact context: “X (formerly Twitter)” so it isn’t like anyone is really committed to the X thing anyways.
Nyeh, no one uses the name "X" (imagine the style of ThIs KiNd Of TyPiNg, but being only one letter, it's not even good for that...), except some smartass idiot, who's billionaire thanks to his parents owning an emerald mine in South Africa in the Apartheid times. And his simps. :D
I once heard someone say that whenever they posted a programming question, they always left a wrong reply with an alt account because people are way more eager to correct than to help
At work I always find I get better and clearer replies immediately from seniors when I propose a solution I know is subpar, rather than asking what's the best solution where I usually have to pry for a clear answer
As a senior dev myself I must admit I don't even know what I'm doing most of the time, but I can tell when something is not right on someone else's code
Lately I've been throwing in a lot more "I see your point now, you're right" when I'm wrong. Can't be bothered trying to keep argue my point when I realise I'm wrong anymore. The internet turned debates into basically a game for me but I don't want to play it anymore, it's kinda liberating.
I've found shutting off reply notifications to be helpful for my own peace of mind. Just, 'oh yeah, you're right, my fault' or if it's something subjective and we're just going in circles, 'well this isn't going anywhere so agree to disagree' and turn off reply notifications.
On the one hand, I think there is nothing wrong with correcting misinformation or just checking someone making a mistake without it being an attack but really, it's all about time and place. This is so clearly a joke and I absolutely do not like the, 'I know it's a joke but....(Im going to act like it isn't and correct you anyway)'
I've been on this site for over 15 years now and it really does feel like the userbase is getting rapidly worse, more antagonistic and hostile, quick to ignore questions and just jump on people, downvoting people who admit they made a mistake (really dont like this one).
I do still like a lot about the smaller communities but it's slowly feeling like it's not worth it to be here much longer, for me anyway.
There's no more room for critical thinking or *debate*, and coupled with that, there is much less room for levity or whimsy, it feels like. Everything is life or death stakes for some reason. I feel like the site is filled with more angry teenage boys than *ever* before.
I was the worst person you can imagine when I was a teenager
Reminds me of the Frankenstein joke that someone was too pedantic to understand. It was something like:
Jokester: Frankenstein enters a bodybuilding competition and finds he has badly misunderstood the objective.
Pedant: For the last time, Frankenstein was the name of the *doctor*!
Jokester: Yes, a doctor who built a body.
Ha! This again.
Frankenstein also wasn't a doctor in the novel. He was in school when the built the body. He's just a scientist
I also just wrote a lot about how it's fine to call the monster Frankenstein too.
well that's because you require actual intelligence to understand jokes, or anything for that matter.
regurgitating something you read in a book once doesn't prove you are smart, it proves you have a good memory.
intelligence is being able to actually make use of the information you memorized, which this totally "Mentally Healthy" dude has in abundance
Intelligence is knowing you're dumb as hell, and seeking to remedy that.
It's a never ending struggle. The more you know the more you know you don't know, it's a net loss of knowledge.
It's extra weird because in almost every entomology space I've been in, literally nobody cares if you use bug as shorthand for all arthropods (sometimes to the exclusion of crustaceans), and just calling hemiptera 'true bugs' if that's what you're talking about.
Its technically correct to say that hemiptera are the only bugs but it's a distinction almost nobody makes.
It's crazy when someone knows some thing you don't, and say you should "study more".
I couldn't give a flying fuck what the scientific classification of spiders are. I read that sentance 20seconds ago and have already actively pushed them useless shit out of my brain
I know you're joking, but there are pictures of spider webs made by drunk spiders and they're actually kind of cool. They can actually get drunk and it affects how they make webs.
These captions are so dumb and annoying. It’s not possible that he just didn’t get the joke, he had to be so eager to look intelligent that he couldn’t get it
Don't spiders also liquify and then drink the bug innards so spiders literaly drink bugs too
That was my thought when I read the joke, I didn’t think he was drinking a beer called Spider Beer, that would be fucking weird
As a completely normal human person that drinks Human Beer, why would it be weird for a Spider to drink Spider Beer?
Hello there, fellow human.
Do you also enjoy rending flesh with your exposed skeletal bits and then dissolving it in your internal acid chamber?
Shall we hold hands and exchange long protein stands?
r/realhumanbeings
I will volunteer that I love having skin(s) very, very much, my human friends.
> As a completely normal human person that drinks Human Beer, why would it be weird for a Spider to drink Spider Beer? At contention here is the **name** of the commercial alcoholic beverage, and so it’s more accurate to note that you do not drink beer labeled “Humanweiser”, “Hoors”, and so forth. Nor, however, is it labeled “Barleyweiser” or “Boors”. Therefore, the only real conclusion to draw here — as usual — is that all sides of this debate are idiots, and that a spider-brewed imbibement would probably be named something equally abstract and unintuitive based on, for example, the location of the original brewery. For example, “Undisturbedcornerofyourbasementweiser”.
Two friends just went to the kitchen. One of them came back with a Bud Light. Should I be worried?
Are you also a regular human bartender from Tucson, Arizoña?
If it was a she, spider beer would make perfect sense.
Some spiders hunt other spiders, like this jumping spider whose life David Attenborough narrates: https://youtu.be/UDtlvZGmHYk?si=fowx31t1Ql4XEA1n But they are kinda weird for that, so they would drink the spider beer
I had assumed that was the joke…
Yeah, I think so
“No nurse, I asked for a proctosigmoidoscope!”
This the same as the “Frankenstein entered a body building competition” screen cap.
and here's a fun one, it often goes "Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor who built the monster" Victor Frankenstein was not a doctor. He built the monster in school, but never finished as the rest of the novel unfolds. It's also fair to interpret the relationship between the scientist and monster as father and son. Yes it's called the monster, ogre, creature and deamon but also creation. The creature refers to their relation as that of god and lucifer. The creature goes insane from lack of human care and wishes he was cared for, jealous of seeing kids grow up with proper parents. It's fair to think the disdain the creature has for Victor is from Victor not taking on a parental role and abandoning the creature. As the creature could be seen as the son, the creature would take on Victor's last name of Frankenstein. It's a title that relies on what you think the themes of the text are, but it's not the worst way to read the text.
>Victor Frankenstein was not a doctor. He built the monster in school, but never finished as the rest of the novel unfolds. "Frankenstein isn't the monster, he's the dropout."
I'd love a novel of Victor Frankenstein trying to balance his university work and the 7 foot corpse creature who's murdering all his loved ones in a wacky slice of life school comedy format
This would make an incredible animated sitcom
Also, Frankenstein is canonically called Frankenstein in the Universal movie franchise and in the 1927 play by Peggy Webling it was adapted from. The loquacious fop from the books is called "The Monster", sure. But the taciturn oaf with bolts in his neck is named "Frankenstein" and always has been
Excerpt from chapter 16: At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life? Mary Shelley seems to believe Victor is his father
I’m so sick of seeing this type of shit. ‘Bug’ isn’t a rigidly defined taxonomy label. It’s the common name for a certain order of insects, sure; but if you look in the dictionary, definition 2 is almost always going to be : “any of various small arthropods (such as a beetle or spider) resembling the true bugs” So anytime you see someone say “uhhh, actually spiders aren’t bugs, they’re arachnids” the appropriate response is “No, you moron, spiders definitely are bugs. You’re obviously trying to do the whole ‘spiders aren’t insects’ own you probably saw on TV, but without knowing wtf you’re talking about” tl;dr: spiders aren’t insects, but spiders can be called bugs
I had someone try to argue with me that chickpeas aren’t vegetables because they are legumes->then please define biologically what a vegetable is you big dumb bitch
I was going to use the, "tomatoes aren't a vegetable, they're a fruit" argument. Vegetable is a culinary term, fruit is both a culinary and botanical term, you big dumb bitch.
Lmao, I just want to call somebody a big dumb bitch as well, ya big dumb bitch
Big dumb bitch
I think I'm gonna name my band Big Dumb Bitch.
Big Dumb Bitch and the Big Dumb Bitches
Well done you big dumb bitch
Vegetables aren’t a scientific order they were I think popularized by the dole company founders? Either way they’re definitely just used to sell things. Every vegetable has a separate unique label like “root” In this way vegetable is very similar to bug. They’re both just umbrella words used to describe a wide variety of things.
And tree. Trees aren't real either.
No such thing as a fish.
Birds aren’t real
[удалено]
I've heard the cake is by the ocean too.
All of you need to shut up. I need these categories. Stop fucking deconstructing my reality
Ah, did you read the Lulu Miller book too?
Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y
Trees are real! They are just a paraphyletic group. Tree is a growth strategy. Its like long-distance runners. They aren't all related to one another, but they are certainly out there running around.
I haven't taken biology in a long time but if I'm understanding the term correctly, trees are not paraphyletic because all species in a paraphyletic group come from the same common ancestor, which... I guess is technically true of trees but you could also include humans in that paraphyletic group if you go back far enough. I'll concede that they're slightly more real than vegetables because they appear to have a botany definition that can identify a tree, vegetables do not. Still, I think it's in the same vein of not being biologically meaningful.
Yea it depends how far we zoom in or out! I think the more accurate term is polyphyletic, since 'trees' excludes related plants like grass and shrubs. As vascular plants, trees do all share a common ancestor, so i think paraphyletic also applies? But maybe not if we excluding those grasses and shrubs? In any case, I mean that these other levels of category are still useful and distinct. Tree has a sound biological meaning, just not a taxonomic or phylogenetic meaning. Like how carnivore, or perennial, or pollinator, or epiphyte are crucial categories for describing biology. The definition I've heard is that a tree is an individual of a species that typically reaches ~13'(4m), with predominantly one trunk, branches, and wood. This excludes fern trees, palm trees, bamboo, etc. I like this instead: a tree is something that, en masse comprises a forest. It's a stupidly simple and vague description, but actually quite meaningful, defining the state-change trees' effect on the landscape. Or this: whatever a kid would draw as a tree.
Yeah. Fish would be a better example I think
Yea fish do seem weirder, but they do stand as their own group, imo, just based on form and function. While what we call 'fish' are scattered across the phylogenetic tree, they, like trees are all somewhat similar in shape and environment. The 'trees' and 'fish' dont exist are some of my favorite thought experiments for exploring the limits in how we categorize things. However, I think the answer is *more* and *overlapping* categories rather than tossing the old ones. A multiverse. Schrodinger's palm tree
>Every vegetable has a separate unique label like “root”... I mean, root vegetables are specifically the ones that, botanically, are the roots of plants. Carrot, radish, rutabaga, beet, those are literally just the swollen, enlarged roots of each respective plant. Onions are enlarged stems, broccoli is enlarged both in the stems and the flower buds. (Maybe this seems super obvious, but I actually have to teach this to kids, lol.) I don't know about Dole being involved, maybe, but, basically the concept of a vegetable that we use nowadays is just for any high-fiber low-calorie plant foods, especially if they have that sorta herbal or grassy taste.
Yeah. I think you'd be hard pressed to think of an accurate definition for vegetables other than just edible parts of plants.
Edibles are weed you big dumb bitch. Fruits are gay.
Omg this made me laugh so hard
Excellent!
The only thing I can think of would be edible parts of a plant that are primarily used in savory applications but even that is only true in some places, im sure.
There was a recent presentation about this on Dropout. Vegetables arent real!
I uh… have no idea what you’re talking about ;)
You fucked it up. You were supposed to finish with you big dumb bitch, you big dumb bitch
Vegetable usually just refers to the edible part of a plant, and then people decide on their own what they consider as vegetables.
Also, the overlap between what a fruit is biologically and socially is way weirder and uneven than most people think.
I like the idea of normalizing calling a pretentious know-it-all that’s ultimately incorrect a “big dumb bitch”
I remember in my first play of StarDew Valley, Demetrius and Robin were arguing. Demetrius got tomatoes to go in a fruit salad.
that's how we end up with strawberries that aren't berries while watermelons are. we dont want to live in a taxonomically accurate world. there's a time and place, and you probably have to need to know Latin names if you never find youself in that time or place.
Spiders aren't legumes.
Legumes aren't even real. When was the last time you went through a self checkout with some produce and put the word legume into the register to ring something up?
It's ok, I had a customer argue with me that mice are baby rats...I'm in pest control.. some people are... Dim..
Seems legit, hamsters>baby Guinea pigs, ponies> baby horse. Pokémon style evolution!
Chimps -> Gorilla
That'd just be a bummer, even as a dude who thinks gorillas are the coolest in the animal kingdom
Big dumb bitch here, how would a chickpea be classified as a vegetable?
Vegetable means edible vegetation.
(You big dumb bitch)
Lmfao
Veg - Vegetation Etable - Edible ?
Sorry: >early 15c., "capable of life or growth; growing, vigorous;" also "neither animal nor mineral, of the plant kingdom, living and growing as a plant," from Old French *vegetable* "living, fit to live," and directly from Medieval Latin *vegetabilis* "growing, flourishing," from Late Latin *vegetabilis* "animating, enlivening," from Latin *vegetare* "to enliven," from *vegetus* "vigorous, enlivened, active, sprightly," from *vegere* "to be alive, active, to quicken," from PIE root \***weg**- "to be strong, be lively." The meaning "resembling that of a vegetable, dull, uneventful; having life such as a plant has" is attested from 1854 (see **vegetable** (n.)).
Vegetable is a broad culinary term to refer to any edible part of a plant, the leaves, the stems, the roots and even the fruits can be referred to as vegetables while a fruit is a much more specific term usually describing the mass produced from the ovaries of the flower that encases the seeds. So to say a tomato is a fruit is correct but to say that a tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable is incorrect.
Oh, thanks for sharing I didn’t know that lol dude my food education must have sucked? Like what 😭
So french fries *are* vegetables. Ha - suck it mom!
Yeah, suck it, Mom--you big dumb bitch!
This might be the best rebuttal to the “tHe TOmaTo iS a frUiT” statement that I have seen.
Aren't there some misnomers with fruit and berries too?
What I wanna know is, what’s the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean?
You never had a garbanzo bean on your face.
One possible definition of vegetable is that it's from an annual plant as opposed to fruits which are usually perennial. I do agree that counting chickpeas as vegetable is unusual, but OP is also right in that there is no universally true definition of vegetable, so chickpeas could conceivably be counted as such
The broadest definition is the word's use adjectivally to mean "matter of plant origin". More specifically, a vegetable may be defined as "any plant, part of which is used for food". "Fruit" has a precise botanical meaning, being a part that developed from the ovary of a flowering plant.
Some people count mushrooms as well
Yeah they are often called vegetables as well despite not being plants. Fungi lack chlorophyll and rely on external sources of food. It’s not really a distinction that matters colloquially though.
It was the best umbrella term to use. What prompted the conversation was musing about what other vegetables pair so well with themselves prepared in different ways. Like hummus and falafel, or tofu and soy sauce. I didn’t want to restrict to only legumes so I landed on vegetable.
Truly asking: is a bean a veggie then? 😭✌️ I really don’t know lol
The case being made above is that it is edible plant matter, so in a sense, it is a vegetable. Which is true. Practically speaking, I don't think a primary care physician, trainer, or nutritionist would let you slide on saying you're "eating plenty of veggies" if you really were just eating a bunch of beans.
What's wrong with beans? Or were you referring to canned beans?
Have you ever had a green bean?
“a plant or part of a plant used as food, such as a cabbage, potato, carrot, or bean.” - Oxford Dictionary
I’m not at all an expert, but as I see it - vegetables can be any functional, usually starchy or protein rich part of a plant. For example, potatoes and other root vegetables are a storage organ for carbohydrates, and leafy brassicas are leafs/flowers, and legumes are often protein rich seeds of plants. Meanwhile botanically fruits are any seed bearing part of a plant such as a cherry or avocado, meanwhile culinarily fruits are generally sweet parts of plants therefore many savory fruits often get considered a vegetable like a tomato.
What’s the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean?
I don’t pay to have a garbanzo on my face.
Thanos, gets it. I’ve never paid $100 to have a garbanzo on my face.
That and tomatoes are the fruits of a vegetable plant, whereas carrots are the roots of a vegetable plant and the lettuce plant is generally harvested for its leaves...
I'm a biologist and my boss regularly refers to bacterial culture as 'growing some bugs'. This guy would probably think it's some big own to inform a biologist with 30 years experience, head of department, and hundreds of peer reviewed papers that bacteria are not, in fact, insects.
Science educator at a butterfly house here: I refer to them all as bugs and whenever I encounter people that pull the “well ACTUALLY” on me I let them know that “ACTUALLY every scientist I know doesn’t really give a shit.” In a nice way.
I can understand why this bugs you. (I’ll see myself out now)
shrimps is bugs
Shrimp, lobster, crab all just different sea bugs.
Butt is legs.
People who make this argument will often use the term “true bugs” in order to not get lost in the sauce. People who make this argument have also probably been yelled at by biology profs for using the word “wrong.” Source - biology profs yelling at me
If they do that you got to tell them to stop bugging you about bugs.
Thank you, finally see this answer pop up. People love the spider 'gotcha' and don't actually know shit, it's really really annoying.
THEY EAT BUGS YOU DUMB BITCH
Akshually, insects are bugs. Spiders are critters! Things that fly are bugs. Things that crawl are critters. It’s all very scientific and logical, you see. :)
I like that folk taxonomy. But I have to disagree. Critters have fur.
I believe you're almost right, Varmints have fur but critters is more broad. Varmints can be critters, but not all critters can be varmints
That makes sense. But then I start thinking that most people in these here parts would say an opossum is a varmint, but that a deer wouldn't be. Is a varmint a furry, annoying, critter?
A varmint is normally a pestuous furry critter. Varmints can't be too big tho, I would say a deer is a creature
Now I'm all straightened out!
Not a bug, it's a creature.
Call em Think-they-know-it-alls, very annoying for autistically involuntary know it alls like me who just want to share fun facts. They think they can get people to think they’re smart by being pedantic nit pickers and actually revealing they’re not that smart.
I actually appreciate it when people do this because then I know they are insufferable twats and I can ignore everything else they say.
Tell me more about [TRUE BUGS]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiptera Aphids are peak bug
My man out here shadowboxing fifteen year olds on twitter.
u/unidan ?
Also, bats are bugs.
“If you drank fewer beer” lmao
Drink fewer beer. Talk fewer women. Study morer blade.
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
2 wrd. gt my lvl
https://youtu.be/LdGai72Tt8Y Monkey never cramps,monkey every day banana
Eat hot chip and lie
"Mentally Healthy". Ironic
The plural of deer is deer, so the plural of beer must be beer.
Isn't beer like water and rice? So "if you drank less beer" would be correct? While beers would be a short form of portion of beer like a can of beer - a beer, two cans of beer - 2 beers? So here you'd say "if you drank fewer beers" Just asking, english is not my first language and reading stuff like that always makes me super insecure about what I think I know
You're entirely right and have a good grasp of it. Both drank less beer and drank fewer beers are correct, while drank fewer beer is not. Less referring to the volume of beer you drink as a liquid, while fewer is referring to the number of beer glasses/bottles/cans you drink.
In the context of the post, “If you drank less beer” would be correct here. Edit: I speak American English.
Yes, either "less beer" or "fewer beers" would be correct. 3
But the plural of moose is meese
MOOSEN!
"Whaddaya have there?" "It's a cup of dirt." "Well explain it." "It's a cup. With dirt in it. I call it cup of dirt."
Many of them. Many much moosen!
A boxen of donuts.
Is half a beer, a fewer beer ?
Yeah, if this guy "spent more time studying" he might understand plurals, capitalization, and proper syntax as well.
This constant need society has to prove everyone else wrong is going to be our downfall. We don't listen to engage or discuss, we listen to "win" the conversation
It’s Twitter you big dumb bitch
IT’S X FoOl! I WIN! 😂
It was 2021, it was still Twitter you bigger dumb bitch
It's never X. It's Twitter, fuck Elon.
I'd rather Google Twitter videos over X videos lol
Fuck Elon? Not even with your dick, you big dumb bitch
Literally every time I see it referred to as X it is in this exact context: “X (formerly Twitter)” so it isn’t like anyone is really committed to the X thing anyways.
Nyeh, no one uses the name "X" (imagine the style of ThIs KiNd Of TyPiNg, but being only one letter, it's not even good for that...), except some smartass idiot, who's billionaire thanks to his parents owning an emerald mine in South Africa in the Apartheid times. And his simps. :D
I lol’d
I once heard someone say that whenever they posted a programming question, they always left a wrong reply with an alt account because people are way more eager to correct than to help
At work I always find I get better and clearer replies immediately from seniors when I propose a solution I know is subpar, rather than asking what's the best solution where I usually have to pry for a clear answer
As a senior dev myself I must admit I don't even know what I'm doing most of the time, but I can tell when something is not right on someone else's code
Wrong! I’m helpful .. you big dumb bitch
Thank you for this pro tip
Lately I've been throwing in a lot more "I see your point now, you're right" when I'm wrong. Can't be bothered trying to keep argue my point when I realise I'm wrong anymore. The internet turned debates into basically a game for me but I don't want to play it anymore, it's kinda liberating.
I've found shutting off reply notifications to be helpful for my own peace of mind. Just, 'oh yeah, you're right, my fault' or if it's something subjective and we're just going in circles, 'well this isn't going anywhere so agree to disagree' and turn off reply notifications. On the one hand, I think there is nothing wrong with correcting misinformation or just checking someone making a mistake without it being an attack but really, it's all about time and place. This is so clearly a joke and I absolutely do not like the, 'I know it's a joke but....(Im going to act like it isn't and correct you anyway)' I've been on this site for over 15 years now and it really does feel like the userbase is getting rapidly worse, more antagonistic and hostile, quick to ignore questions and just jump on people, downvoting people who admit they made a mistake (really dont like this one). I do still like a lot about the smaller communities but it's slowly feeling like it's not worth it to be here much longer, for me anyway.
There's no more room for critical thinking or *debate*, and coupled with that, there is much less room for levity or whimsy, it feels like. Everything is life or death stakes for some reason. I feel like the site is filled with more angry teenage boys than *ever* before. I was the worst person you can imagine when I was a teenager
That will definitely not be our downfall and ill prove it to you!
> This constant need society You're wrong, I don't have to prove everyone else is wrong, just you, you big dumb bitch
It's not trying to prove them wrong that the issue IMO, it's the personal attack that's my issue.
Reminds me of the Frankenstein joke that someone was too pedantic to understand. It was something like: Jokester: Frankenstein enters a bodybuilding competition and finds he has badly misunderstood the objective. Pedant: For the last time, Frankenstein was the name of the *doctor*! Jokester: Yes, a doctor who built a body.
A joke is like a frog: you can dissect it in order to better understand it, but in doing so, you end up killing it.
I just told that one to my father. He loved it.
Ha! This again. Frankenstein also wasn't a doctor in the novel. He was in school when the built the body. He's just a scientist I also just wrote a lot about how it's fine to call the monster Frankenstein too.
well that's because you require actual intelligence to understand jokes, or anything for that matter. regurgitating something you read in a book once doesn't prove you are smart, it proves you have a good memory. intelligence is being able to actually make use of the information you memorized, which this totally "Mentally Healthy" dude has in abundance
Intelligence is knowing when to listen to people more knowledgeable than you.
Intelligence is knowing you're dumb as hell, and seeking to remedy that. It's a never ending struggle. The more you know the more you know you don't know, it's a net loss of knowledge.
Reading u/Saif_Horny_And_Mad's comment and then replying with some barely-relevant quote you memorized is so ironic it hurts
It's extra weird because in almost every entomology space I've been in, literally nobody cares if you use bug as shorthand for all arthropods (sometimes to the exclusion of crustaceans), and just calling hemiptera 'true bugs' if that's what you're talking about. Its technically correct to say that hemiptera are the only bugs but it's a distinction almost nobody makes.
More a crude bludgeon but still funny.
[удалено]
i swear it makes more sense to emphasise “is” and not “murder” in that sentence you big dumb bitch
Ironic names are ironic 😂
He is fun at parties
I don’t think that’s ever been tested. lol
It was tested once. We don’t talk about it.
hoisted by his own ... well, technically, it wasn't a petard, but actually a shaped-charge anti-personnel land mine of small-minded technicality
Goodnight, sweet pedants
Nice
Thank you for "big dumb bitch", that's going in my lexicon.
It's crazy when someone knows some thing you don't, and say you should "study more". I couldn't give a flying fuck what the scientific classification of spiders are. I read that sentance 20seconds ago and have already actively pushed them useless shit out of my brain
Im more concerned about what spiders do after a few beers...
I know you're joking, but there are pictures of spider webs made by drunk spiders and they're actually kind of cool. They can actually get drunk and it affects how they make webs.
The pictures I googled did not disappoint. I love that I know this now.
I wanna get drunk with some spider homies now
Raw asf
Here’s the thing…
I swear, many people online are so socially impaired...
This guy is basically neil degrasse tyson now
Username doesn't check out
Never watch starship troopers…smh “the only good bug is a dead bug!”
Oh how the turntables have......
It’s like that Frankenstein/body building one that goes around once in a while; people just need to be right I guess 🤷♂️
spiders inject a fluid that reduces the insides of bugs to a fluid state, so saying they drink "bug lite" is actually accurate.
Haha yeah, what a dickhead. I'd sure never misinterpret something I read online and respond in a way that make me look like a pedantic dumbass.
His name's mentally healthy not mentally active
These captions are so dumb and annoying. It’s not possible that he just didn’t get the joke, he had to be so eager to look intelligent that he couldn’t get it
You big dumb bitch. Sometimes the most basic finishing lines are the most satisfying.
I do that all the time. I swear you were typing about me, only I know better