Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Bees Are Fish


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

One can find similar examples. A Catholic archbishop of Quebec long ago ruled that beavers were fish for purpose of fasting rules, and one in New Orleans made the same determination with respect to alligators.

 

There are other ecclesiastical examples down the ages, including treating birds as fish for Lent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes all kinds of sense to me.

 

The general difference between a fruit and a vegetable is with a fruit you eat the pulp, and with a vegetable you eat the seed. A tomato is a fruit. Biologically. Or botanically, if you prefer.

 

But legally a tomato is a vegetable. That has something to do with import taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there is the germ of an idea - "Thingness" ! All matter is made up of of the same stuff at the atomic level so whatever it may be it is a "thing".  Imagine the impact on conversation, and Law!  No more vocabulary, at least in respect to nouns.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alpo said:

 

 

The general difference between a fruit and a vegetable is with a fruit you eat the pulp, and with a vegetable you eat the seed. A tomato is a fruit. Biologically. Or botanically, if you prefer.

 

But legally a tomato is a vegetable. That has something to do with import taxes.

But spinach and brocolli don't have any seeds....

 

"Fruit" is both a botanical and a culinary term. "Vegetable" just a culinary one. The ancient canard about the tomato notwithstanding, it was always both.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

One can find similar examples. A Catholic archbishop of Quebec long ago ruled that beavers were fish for purpose of fasting rules, and one in New Orleans made the same determination with respect to alligators.

 

There are other ecclesiastical examples down the ages, including treating birds as fish for Lent.

 

 

If I recall correctly, heh!, in the Slavic Typicon amphibians and reptiles are allowed during the fasts, as is beer.  And the Greek Typicon allows amphibians and beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

But spinach and brocolli don't have any seeds....

 

"Fruit" is both a botanical and a culinary term. "Vegetable" just a culinary one. The ancient canard about the tomato notwithstanding, it was always both.  

Fruit is a reproductive organ of a plant.  It usually contains diploid (fertilized) seeds as well as other  material that attracts animals to feed on it and thus help disperse the seeds. 

 

A vegetable is a vegetative body of a plant, like stems, roots, or leaves, that have no role in reproduction.  So an apple or peach contains seeds and so is a fruit.  A watermelon, tomato, or ear of corn contains seeds, so they are technically also fruits (actually all three are are berries --they are aggregations of multiple fruits). 

 

A stem of celery, leaf of spinach, or a piece of sugar cane is a vegetable. 

 

A head of broccoli or cauliflower is also a vegetable.  They are flowering heads  that at some future point will produce  seeds.  But because they are harvested before their seeds become mature and fertilized, they are considered vegetables.  

 

Regarding the Ca Fish and Game code definition, fish were originally defined many years ago to include inter-tidal invertebrates like clams, abalone, crabs or lobsters. 

 

The term "Invertebrates" gradually broadened through case law to include terrestrial invertebrates, including insects, arachnids and anything else alive with no backbone.  It's what happens when you mix biology with lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Vegetable" is culinary. "Plant" and "fruit" are botanical. At least, this is the precept that I endorse. The status of any part of a plant as a 'vegetable' depends entirely upon its use in cuisine. From a  culinary standpoint, the differntiation is also sweet vs. savory. Cut a tomato into a salad, or cook it into a sauce-- it's savory, not sweet. Therefore it is a vegetable, nothwithstanding that it is botanically a fruit

 

Just as there are many culinary nuts that are not botanically "nuts". They are still nuts from the standpoint of human ingestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

"Vegetable" is culinary. "Plant" and "fruit" are botanical. At least, this is the precept that I endorse. The status of any part of a plant as a 'vegetable' depends entirely upon its use in cuisine. From a  culinary standpoint, the differntiation is also sweet vs. savory. Cut a tomato into a salad, or cook it into a sauce-- it's savory, not sweet. Therefore it is a vegetable, nothwithstanding that it is botanically a fruit

 

Just as there are many culinary nuts that are not botanically "nuts". They are still nuts from the standpoint of human ingestion.

After you chew 'em up and swallow 'em, they're all the same.  Just protein, fats, carbs, roughage, etc.  Sweet, savory, fruits, veggies--none of it matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to jump in here and admit that I engaged in a bit of sensationalism with the subject line.  What that court really said was that the statute has enough stretch in it to cover terrestrial invertebrates as well as aquatic invertebrates.

 

Quote

We next consider whether the Commission’s authority is limited to listing only aquatic invertebrates," the ruling stated. "We conclude the answer is, “no.” Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45 is not so limited.

"We acknowledge the scope of the definition is ambiguous but also recognize we are not interpreting the definition on a blank slate. The legislative history supports the liberal interpretation of the Act (the lens through which we are required to construe the Act) that the Commission may list any invertebrate as an endangered or threatened species. We thus agree with the Commission, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), and intervenors Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food Safety (collectively public interest groups) that the trial court erred when it reached a contrary conclusion.

"We accordingly reverse the judgment."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

And Californios get mad when folks make fun of their state.:huh:

 

Now do you see why folks make fun of it? 

 

Does reality stop at the crest of the Sierra Nevada so your officials can substitute one of their own choosing?

I feel sorry for the good intelligent conservatives (like SASS pards) in California. It's only about 98% of the population and 99.8% of all the politicians that make the rest of the country think they're all idiots.

JHC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in CA, and are stuck living here until the end of the trail.
I fully understand why folks laugh at CA, but it bothers me not.
I certainly agree with their opinion of 66% of CA folks, and laugh along with them.
2 out of 3 here in CA fit that exact description.

However, joking the folks from the Deep South as being inbred, certainly stirs up the animosity, even if it doesn't really apply to them.
They really bristle at the image of being thought a slow bumpkin from the family stump with a banjo in their lap.

What is missed, is that every bad idea that crawls out of CA or NY eventually becomes the law of the land everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theres a reason i no longer practice the religion my mother raised me in , they have way too many opposing views that they accept with the simple phradse - "its a mystery" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.