I overheard someone talking about veganism and said they only eat plants. I asked them about mushrooms, “of course it's fine, those are plants”.
No amount of convincing worked.
I think an issue here is that taxonomic and colloquial definitions don't always agree.
Spiders are colloquially bugs, but they're not taxonomically "true bugs" (which is itself a colloquialism for Hemiptera). Tomatos are colloquially vegetables but taxonomically fruits...but afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.
And as someone else in the thread mentioned, colloquial berries are not always taxonomic berries.
So...colloquially, "plants" sorta means, "macroscopic multicellular living non-animal thing," but taxonomically it's something else.
Pluto is a planet, though. It’s officially considered a “dwarf” planet, and as “dwarf” is just an adjective, it’s still a planet (just like a short person is still a person). The other 8 new dwarf planets (Ceres, Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Sedna) are also all planets - so we have 17 planets total.
...this would trigger a friend of mine so badly (fungi enthusiast and Pluto stan). I want to send it, but at the same time... I'm not sure I'd hear the end of it.
I mean both classifications are arbitrary and made up, so defense of either side is equally valid (even if only because they're also equally invalid).
We don't even have a solid definition of what constitutes "life", or "consciousness", because we can't agree on what should be included, or how various aspects are defined.
In the end, words are just symbols or sounds that we try to - as consistently as possible - associate with ideas, but it's all made up.
I've never even considered whether they're plants or not. I guess I always assumed they were, but now it makes sense that they're not. But I can't imagine anyone having a tizzy over it either way.