• AEsheron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Ah, but we can go even further beyond in pedantry. This distinction is only exclusive when we’re talking about a living thing. When talking about the substances themselves, one is a subcategory of the other. A venomous snake is not poisonous, but a venomous venom is a poisonous poison.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Actually a lot of venom is perfectly edible so long as you don’t have a stomach ulcer or cut in your mouth or something.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is also true. Poisonous doesn’t specifically mean “dangerous when eaten” when talking about the substance. It is an insanely broad category. It basically just means the substance is harmful.

    • TechLich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yep, and even when talking about living things it’s not a clear distinction.

      In biology, poison is a substance that causes harm when an organism is exposed to it. Venom is a poison that enters the body through a sting or bite. In a bunch of medical fields though, poisons only apply to toxins that are ingested or absorbed through the skin and that definition sometimes carries across to zoology.

      Venomous creatures are poisonous by most definitions because venom is a poison. But if the distinction is useful in a medical or zoological context then they’re not.

      tldr: The pedantry of eg. correcting someone who says a snake is poisonous is totally pointless and mostly wrong.