1542
kingdom come (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
146 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Actually, "mushrooms are technically meat" is a new hill I'd like to die on. Mushrooms have animal cells, ergo, definitely not a vegetable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They don't, they're a distinct third thing with a distinct third type of cells

    They are, however, more closely related to us animals than they are to plants. As in, our last common ancestor is less far back.

    Also, unrelated to your comment, but related to the post: vegetable isn't a botanical term, but a culinary term. So, there's no bioligical basis for vegetable in the first place, so there's no issue with counting mushrooms among them. Sure, it's a bit inconvenient that the word 'fruit' is both a culinary and a botanical term in English, and there's overlap to it, but that doesn't mean it's somehow illogical that some things are culinarilu fruits but not botanically, and vice versa.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    So, there’s no bioligical basis for vegetable in the first place

    idk if I would go that far, I think "edible parts of plants" is a solid foundation. Sure, "edible" is kind of a social construct, but the plant part is indisputable. "Vegetarian" and "plant based diet" are near synonymous

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I've never been under the impression that any edible plant part is a vegetable. Like, an almond? An apple? Rice? Cinnamon? I could go on. All edible plant parts. I've never heard of them be referred to as vegetables.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent