Most won’t consider it a tree but who am I to judge
Comment on bamboozled
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 years agoTechnically you’re not wrong. Mainly because there’s no agreed upon technical definition of what does or doesn’t constitute a tree.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 2 years ago
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 years ago
Most are wrong then. If you can make toothpicks out of it, it’s a tree.
flicker@lemmy.world 2 years ago
You can make toothpicks out of anything if you’re willing to find a hard bit in it that can be sharpened or whittled.
Holds up a chicken. Behold! A tree!
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 years ago
shneancy@lemmy.world 2 years ago
bones are trees? o_o
flora_explora@beehaw.org 2 years ago
Nope, that’s not how the definition of a tree works. Look at swednek’s definition in the comments: it is a woody trunk with branches. There are many other plants you could make toothpicks out of (e.g. that are woody) that aren’t trees. For example, shrubs and lianas.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 years ago
the definition of tree is literally just something that looks like a tree: a woody trunk with branches.
Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
TIL that trees are the same as vegetables and weeds, arbitrary cultural groupings. We should make an arbitrary cultural group name for arbitrary cultural grouped things!
So far the group is: Trees Vegetables Weeds Pets Continents The culinary use of fruit
Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 2 years ago
I feel like sports could fit into that pretty well.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Fish
Szyler@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Berries
Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
I think both of those have rigid scientific definitions.