I was browsing upon Hideas.com and stumbled upon this. The guy is claiming a coconut is a mammal lol I know coconuts are just seeds not mammals but I just thought this was a funny example of how people can just "back up" invalid arguments with logical fallacies. What do you guys think of this? Original Text Can This be true? The Coconut is a Mammal. The primary definition of a mammal is that it produces milk. Coconuts produce milk. Coconut milk can also be used as a substitute for blood plasma. So you can get a transfusion from another person, or a coconut. Mammals are also defined by the fact that they have hair, and coconuts are hairy. Finally, the edible part of the coconut is called the "meat". Coconuts are not nuts. They have meat, blood, hair, and produce milk, therefore the coconut is a mammal Can this be true?
Aren't mammals defined by animals that give birth, rather than for example laying an egg? Could be wrong.
Everything "adds" up to be a mammal, but I wouldn't think of it as a mammal because it doesn't technically have warm blood/ actual birth..
you are forgetting things like a platupus that lays an egg or a echidna and who ever said a coconut is a mammal is stupid
a coconut is a seed though it does not have seeds to grow more, so, a coconut is just a baby tree, trees are not mamals.
Not sure about a coconut but the double coconut closely resembles my favourite mammal. (and yes it is real).
I think its not a mammal because it doesn't give birth but idk for sure the argument is pretty compelling hahaa