Then you should know better than to post as a definition something that has no authority. Just putting your swiped text in italics doesn’t make it anything more than… something you said. Again!

But in fact, I linked to the definition I took it from, which was the Wikipedia. So you are yelling at me for something that is factually not true! Please check the editing history on the original story to make sure I didn’t edit it.

If you don’t like Wikipedia as a source, here’s the Mayo Clinic,. Here’s the British Medical Journal. Here’s McGill. Here’s Encyclopedia Britannica. Would you like others?

I note you didn’t demonstrate even one reputable source using “vegetable oil” this way. Where do you get this idea? Can I see some authoritative source using the word “vegetable oil” in such a way that olive oil is not a vegetable oil?

Corn kernels are the fruit of the corn plant — source. So corn oil is a fruit oilm by your definition. But in fact the article specifically mentions corn oil as bad. How do you account for this?

howling series of fallacies [long incoherent rant using math-y words deleted]

Let me clue you in to something else — personal insults are seen by most rational people, not as bolstering your argument, but showing that you have none.

Your initially comment, “I am a logic teacher,” is unpromising. A correct argument would stand on its own without an appeal to authority. You will notice that in none of my previous Medium articles have I even tangentially referred to studying logic because it was not relevant. An argument should stand or fall on its own merits.

Finally, and most significant, you completely ignored the actual meat of my argument and concentrated on a tiny semantic quibble — one that required you to ignore the rest of my argument which dealt with the article’s substance.

To summarize my arguments:

1. The writer’s recommendations for fat consumption is wildly different from all other recognized dietary authorities.
2. The writer does not appear to have any accreditation or formal training in the field.
3. The graph used to demonstrate the destructive power of consuming demonstrates nothing…
4. …and if it were a valid form of argument, it would show that people’s lives have gotten a lot longer since we started eating more margarine than butter!
5. There is only a single reference to back up all these extraordinary claims.
6. This reference is to a site that is almost entirely devoted to extolling the virtues of meat and dairy.
7. This site does however also have some serious anti-vaccine content.
8. It also has at least one page extolling the virtue of Humorism, a theory of medicine invented by the ancient Greeks and discredited by the 18th century.
9. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus means once a source is shown to be wildly inaccurate in one claim, then all its other claims are suspect.

You ignored all these things to to make the false claim that olive oil is not generally identified as a vegetable oil. Even were that true, it would not refute the other substantive objections I list above.

—

You will be amused to see that since we started discussing this, the original article has now been amended to explicitly mention olive, coconut and avocado oil as good, and calling them “fruit” oils (check the editing history to see the full story).