2% or 98% of Population?

I think you almost always end up with 4.Cherokee_Jack

How many animals start with the letter 'K'? Only 1, the kangarooGTA_dude

[QUOTE="GTA_dude"]How many animals start with the letter 'K'? Only 1, the kangarooBlood-Scribe

And you obviously did a search on that. I highly doubt you typed all that up and spelt everything correctly off the top or your head.....

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="GTA_dude"]How many animals start with the letter 'K'? Only 1, the kangarooGTA_dude

And you obviously did a search on that. I highly doubt you typed all that up and spelt everything correctly off the top or your head.....

Somehow I thought of a Koala bear instead of a Kangaroo.

And yeah, I did do a search just to make point about your statement.

Woah, it almost got me.

It guessed the Denmark part, but then when it asked for an animal starting with K i thought of a Koala. :)

Woah take this test, it's kinda like that red hammer thing but more complex, holy **** I almost fell off my chair at the end... wow, it's insane. http://www.beautifulperth.com/freeekytest.html Hopefully you're part of the 98% because it's shocking.Brainkiller05

It's less shocking than you think. Here are the results for the first five steps, for every number from 1 to 10.

1...9...9...4...D

2...18...9...4...D

3...27...9...4...D

4...36...9...4...D

5...45...9...4...D

6...54...9...4...D

7...63...9...4...D

8...72...9...4...D

9...81...9...4...D

10...90...9...4...D

As you see, no matter what number you start out with, you have to end up with D by step 5. Now, they could have just skipped the numbers part entirely, and had step 1 be: "Name a country that starts with the letter D." But that wouldn't have seemed to be impressive, because then you'd realize that half of the "test" is merely a trick. We think of numbers differently than letters. So when the test starts out with numbers and then ends up with letters and words, we think it's mindblowing. But it's not, once you know what's going on.

ACtually, I got Bolivia -> Alligator -> RhubarbRatfuzz

Then you did it wrong. If you did it right, then you CANNOT end up with a country that doesn't start with the letter D.

i was kinda close......i guessed dominican republic and then i got to T at the fruit part and i couldnt think of anythingsenses_blank

Tangerine? Tomato?

[QUOTE="senses_blank"]i was kinda close......i guessed dominican republic and then i got to T at the fruit part and i couldnt think of anythingMrGeezer

Tangerine? Tomato?

Tomato's a veggieGTA_dude

Only in a culinary sense; botanically speaking, it's a fruit (although the concept of a vegetable doesn't even exist in botany).

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="senses_blank"]i was kinda close......i guessed dominican republic and then i got to T at the fruit part and i couldnt think of anythingGTA_dude

Tangerine? Tomato?

Technically it's both.

[QUOTE="GTA_dude"]Tomato's a veggieGabuEx

Only in a culinary sense; botanically speaking, it's a fruit (although the concept of a vegetable doesn't even exist in botany).

I got stuck on fruit I guessed 9>81>dominican republic>centipede> and couldn't think of a fruit that starts with an Eskiddy666

Lol, you thought of the Dominican Republic, too :shock:

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="GTA_dude"]Tomato's a veggieGTA_dude

Only in a culinary sense; botanically speaking, it's a fruit (although the concept of a vegetable doesn't even exist in botany).

http://www.cracked.com/article_16896_7-stupid-people-who-sued-scientific-method.html

Scroll down to #5, where there was an attempt to legally redefine pi as having the value of 3.2.

And legally defining the tomato as a vegetable as just as stupid.

A tomato IS a fruit. Pi is NOT 3.2. Pi was NEVER 3.2, never will be 3.2. And the tomato will ALWAYS be a fruit. If the courts just happen to be so stupid as to not even know the definition of a fruit, tomatos will STILL be fruits.

[QUOTE="skiddy666"]I got stuck on fruit I guessed 9>81>dominican republic>centipede> and couldn't think of a fruit that starts with an Echessmaster1989

Lol, you thought of the Dominican Republic, too :shock:

whats wrong with us :shock:

[QUOTE="skiddy666"]I got stuck on fruit I guessed 9>81>dominican republic>centipede> and couldn't think of a fruit that starts with an EGTA_dude

Touche its a fruit...I figured this out with a little more research.

Hey im apart of the 2% yay

And legally defining the tomato as a vegetable as just as stupid.

A tomato IS a fruit. Pi is NOT 3.2. Pi was NEVER 3.2, never will be 3.2. And the tomato will ALWAYS be a fruit. If the courts just happen to be so stupid as to not even know the definition of a fruit, tomatos will STILL be fruits.

MrGeezer

Actually, I'll defend this one. It seems weird until you recognize that there are two different legitimate definitions of fruit: a scientific one, and a practical one. It makes perfect sense to legally define a tomato to be a vegetable in the culinary sense because that's how it's used. The legal definition of an item controls how it's treated for the purposes of regulation, tariffs, et cetera, and if it were legally defined as a fruit, then it would be treated in the same way as such things as apples, grapes, and so on. That would make no sense whatsoever on account of the fact that it's used in a culinary context alongside things like lettuce, onions, and other vegetables. Its definition as a fruit really serves no purpose at all if you aren't a botanist.

[QUOTE="GTA_dude"][QUOTE="skiddy666"]I got stuck on fruit I guessed 9>81>dominican republic>centipede> and couldn't think of a fruit that starts with an Eskiddy666

It's a fruit.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

And legally defining the tomato as a vegetable as just as stupid.

A tomato IS a fruit. Pi is NOT 3.2. Pi was NEVER 3.2, never will be 3.2. And the tomato will ALWAYS be a fruit. If the courts just happen to be so stupid as to not even know the definition of a fruit, tomatos will STILL be fruits.

GabuEx

Actually, I'll defend this one. It seems weird until you recognize that there are two different legitimate definitions of fruit: a scientific one, and a practical one. It makes perfect sense to legally define a tomato to be a vegetable in the culinary sense because that's how it's used. The legal definition of an item controls how it's treated for the purposes of regulation, tariffs, et cetera, and if it were legally defined as a fruit, then it would be treated in the same way as such things as apples, grapes, and so on. That would make no sense whatsoever on account of the fact that it's used in a culinary context alongside things like lettuce, onions, and other vegetables. Its definition as a fruit really serves no purpose at all if you aren't a botanist.

So it's okay to be wrong if you're not a botanist?

And how are tomatoes used in a culinary sense? How are culinary uses of tomatoes fundamentally different than culinary uses of "socially accepted" fruits?

[QUOTE="GTA_dude"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Only in a culinary sense; botanically speaking, it's a fruit (although the concept of a vegetable doesn't even exist in botany).

MrGeezer

Scroll down to #5, where there was an attempt to legally redefine pi as having the value of 3.2.

And legally defining the tomato as a vegetable as just as stupid.

A tomato IS a fruit. Pi is NOT 3.2. Pi was NEVER 3.2, never will be 3.2. And the tomato will ALWAYS be a fruit. If the courts just happen to be so stupid as to not even know the definition of a fruit, tomatos will STILL be fruits.

Saw that article on here a few days ago, and read the article, and yah, what idiots would consider 3.2 as pi? But I see this as a different case. One side was full of a bunch of lazy idiots, and the other with people who cared about the future. This one actually has 2 valid sides.

Since it can be both because of the way its grown and used in the kitchen, grown as a fruit, but used as a vegetable, it can be taken both ways. I think the uses outweigh the production. I personally like to think of it as a vegetable because of the taste.

But seriously, do you eat any other fruits the way you eat a tomato? During what courses would you want one? It was catagorized as a vetetable because no one uses it with the fruits. Would you eat a fruit pie with tomatoes?

And yah, I know I said eggplant in a previous post that can also fall under this same argument about being a veggie.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

And legally defining the tomato as a vegetable as just as stupid.

A tomato IS a fruit. Pi is NOT 3.2. Pi was NEVER 3.2, never will be 3.2. And the tomato will ALWAYS be a fruit. If the courts just happen to be so stupid as to not even know the definition of a fruit, tomatos will STILL be fruits.

GabuEx

Actually, I'll defend this one. It seems weird until you recognize that there are two different legitimate definitions of fruit: a scientific one, and a practical one. It makes perfect sense to legally define a tomato to be a vegetable in the culinary sense because that's how it's used. The legal definition of an item controls how it's treated for the purposes of regulation, tariffs, et cetera, and if it were legally defined as a fruit, then it would be treated in the same way as such things as apples, grapes, and so on. That would make no sense whatsoever on account of the fact that it's used in a culinary context alongside things like lettuce, onions, and other vegetables. Its definition as a fruit really serves no purpose at all if you aren't a botanist.

You like to think of it as a vegetable because of the taste?!

Umm...excuse me, but what the bloody hell does a "fruit" taste like?! Does an apple taste like an orange? Does a grapefruit taste like a pear? What the **** is "fruit taste", and what the **** is a "vegetable taste"?

So it's okay to be wrong if you're not a botanist?

MrGeezer

You can jump up and down and call it "wrong", but all it's doing is reflecting the reality of how tomatoes are treated in their practical use.

And how are tomatoes used in a culinary sense? How are culinary uses of tomatoes fundamentally different than culinary uses of "socially accepted" fruits?

MrGeezer

Have you ever ordered a fruit salad and were given a bowl of apple slices, cucumber slices, and tomato slices? Or, have you ever ordered the house salad and were given a bowl of lettuce, apple slices, and strawberries? Have you ever had a sandwich with bacon, lettuce, and apple slices?

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of uses of tomatoes in a mainstream culinary context is alongside other vegetables. Thus, it makes perfect sense to treat it for practical purposes as a vegetable.

You like to think of it as a vegetable because of the taste?!

Umm...excuse me, but what the bloody hell does a "fruit" taste like?! Does an apple taste like an orange? Does a grapefruit taste like a pear? What the **** is "fruit taste", and what the **** is a "vegetable taste"?

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

So it's okay to be wrong if you're not a botanist?

GabuEx

You can jump up and down and call it "wrong", but all it's doing is reflecting the reality of how tomatoes are treated in their practical use.

And how are tomatoes used in a culinary sense? How are culinary uses of tomatoes fundamentally different than culinary uses of "socially accepted" fruits?

MrGeezer

Have you ever ordered a fruit salad and were given a bowl of apple slices, cucumber slices, and tomato slices? Or, have you ever ordered the house salad and were given a bowl of lettuce, apple slices, and strawberries? Have you ever had a sandwich with bacon, lettuce, and apple slices?

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of uses of tomatoes in a mainstream culinary context is alongside other vegetables. Thus, it makes perfect sense to treat it for practical purposes as a vegetable.

Have you ever ordered a cobb salad and had ORANGES served along with the lettuce and the bacon?

Hey, guess what. My salad had bacon on it. Does that make pigs a vegetable too?

Ever ordered a seafood salad? Are mayonnaise and imitation crabmeat vegetables?

Have you ever ordered a cobb salad and had ORANGES served along with the lettuce and the bacon?

MrGeezer

That's one of the very, very few exceptions to the rule and is only the case because oranges tend to be more tart than most other fruits. You can't disprove a generality just by pointing to one single exception.

Hey, guess what. My salad had bacon on it. Does that make pigs a vegetable too?

Ever ordered a seafood salad? Are mayonnaise and imitation crabmeat vegetables?

MrGeezer

Of course not, because pigs and seafood are not plants. Vegetables (and tomatoes) are often used in conjunction with meats in dishes. Fruits, practically never. If you walk into a Subway, you'll only find two botanical fruits behind the counter to put on your sandwiches: cucumbers and tomatoes. No apples, no oranges, no peaches, no grapes, no strawberries... because things considered to be culinary fruits aren't used in such a context. Hence, the practical definition of tomatoes as a vegetable.

2% haha i said koala instead of kangarooLief_Ericson

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

You like to think of it as a vegetable because of the taste?!

Umm...excuse me, but what the bloody hell does a "fruit" taste like?! Does an apple taste like an orange? Does a grapefruit taste like a pear? What the **** is "fruit taste", and what the **** is a "vegetable taste"?

GTA_dude

So...now lemons aren't fruits because they are sour? Well then, what about freaking grapefruits?

As far as your question, I can't recall ever eating a tomato pie. However, I CAN recall eating steaks that were accompanied by a blackberry infused sauce. Just as I can can recall eating steaks that were accompanied by a beef-infused sauce, tomato-infused sauce, or a cognac infused sauce. Hey, we can make sauces with both fruits and booze. I guess that must make booze a fruit.

:roll:

Bottom line, any culinary definition of a fruit is flat out stupid as hell. Botanically fruits make sense because they are consistent. It doesn't matter if they are tasty or disgusting, nutritious or deadly, or sweet or sour. When you go to another planet and see bigass Alien Tomatoes growing on Alien Tomato Vines, you're not gonna have to actually EAT the ****ing things before you radio back home and say that you saw some fruit. The kiwano melon is basically a cucumber, and people classify one as a fruit and the other as a vegetable due to taste, and that's dumb as hell. THEY ARE PRACTICALLY THE SAME THING. They are FRUITS. To say that one is different from the other is like saying that humans don't have livers while chickens do have livers, because I don't chop up human livers and put them into gravy.

In fact, now that I think about it, I can't recall ever eating ANY part of a human being. I've never eaten human fat, bone, or muscle. Does that prevent human fat from being fat in the culinary sense? No...if you ate a dude's arm, you'd still be eating fat. So your best friend still has fat even though you haven't eaten him yet.

No offense to chefs, but the day that I let A FREAKING CHEF tell me what a fruit is is the day that I blow my brains out. I don't freaking try to tell Mr Chef about flavor profiles, so he should at least do me the courtesy of shutting the hell up when I tell him that tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, and zucchini are ALWAYS going to be fruits. He's not a botanist, he's a freakinbg CHEF, and I don't give a **** what he does with the fruits in his refrigerator. I'll eat that **** and call it delicious, but fruits are fruits, and tomatoes are freaking fruits.

That's one of the very, very few exceptions to the rule and is only the case because oranges tend to be more tart than most other fruits. You can't disprove a generality just by pointing to one single exception.

GabuEx

Then the rule is ****ed up. If there are "exceptions to the rule", then the rule fails.

This doesn't happen with the REAL definition of fruits. You'll never hear a botanist say "well, this is a rare case in which a fruit isn't a fruit, but I'm still going to call it a fruit". Why? Because it's either a fruit, or it's NOT a fruit. If there are any exceptions, then your definition is ****ed up and you are wrong. The botanists win, and the chefs cook delicious food.

98% of the population knows that these "98% or 2% of the population..." quotes have no real statistical backing. If you're in the 2% who don't get this, please get some help.

This doesn't happen with the REAL definition of fruits. You'll never hear a botanist say "well, this is a rare case in which a fruit isn't a fruit, but I'm still going to call it a fruit". Why? Because it's either a fruit, or it's NOT a fruit. If there are any exceptions, then your definition is ****ed up and you are wrong. The botanists win, and the chefs cook delicious food.

MrGeezer

Vermont voted for John Kerry in 2004 by 59%. Essex County, VT, however, voted for Bush by 54%, the sole county not to vote for Kerry. Does that make it incorrect to say that Vermont is a very Democratic state? Of course not, unless you want to be argumentative purely for the sake of argument. Similarly, you can't argue against the idea that in the vast number of cases, tomatoes are used in a similar fashion as other vegetables, and in a dissimilar fashion as other fruits - it's just a plain and simple fact.

What would be the benefit to anyone to treat tomatoes as fruits for practical purposes? There is none, other than to please those who want to be "right" purely for the sake of feeling right. It would be one thing if the legal definition of something was just for kicks, but it has a very real effect on how goods are treated economically, and lumping things in with other things that are used in similar manners just makes logical sense.

Not quite.

3x9=27. 2+7=9. 9-5=4. D=Denmark. Koala. Apple.

DigitalExile

2% :Ddeadevil666