• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    Technically you’re not wrong. Mainly because there’s no agreed upon technical definition of what does or doesn’t constitute a tree.

    • Swedneck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      the definition of tree is literally just something that looks like a tree: a woody trunk with branches.

      • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours 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

      • jol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Most are wrong then. If you can make toothpicks out of it, it’s a tree.

        • flicker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          20 hours 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!

        • flora_explora@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours 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.