|
Squalid posted:Ah, but by this logic bread pudding, which uses stale bread (hence already cooked) would qualify, provided it is of a type dry enough to eat with your hands. Applying heat to set the eggs is merely "completing the construction" Yes. Lasagna with big noodles and at least 51% of the filling enclosed (and not topping) eaten with the hands on the bare noodles would also be a sandwich. Sandwiches do not have to be tidy, but their convenience is what makes them sandwiches. Bread pudding would be a bad sandwich but, technically, a sandwich, if eaten in a messy way.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
What is a McGriddle op
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Ah, but by this logic bread pudding, which uses stale bread (hence already cooked) would qualify, provided it is of a type dry enough to eat with your hands. Applying heat to set the eggs is merely "completing the construction" This is bullshit, the bread is mixed in. If it were laid out in layers, yes, it would be a dessert sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:How is a crepe a sandwich but not pancakes with filling between two pancakes? (I.e. the pancakes are cooked normally then filling placed between them) Someone hasn't had a McGriddle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yes. Lasagna with big noodles and at least 51% of the filling enclosed (and not topping) eaten with the hands on the bare noodles would also be a sandwich. Sandwiches do not have to be tidy, but their convenience is what makes them sandwiches. Bread pudding would be a bad sandwich but, technically, a sandwich, if eaten in a messy way. You're breaking your own rules. Lasagna has the bread cooked with the filling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:You're breaking your own rules. Lasagna has the bread cooked with the filling. Not always. The noodles can be precooked, and then just softened by the act of baking. There is a long and strange chain of causality in which a lasagna would become a sandwich but it can be done. THe invention of a sandwich is a very creative and human act, and that spark of genius can fall anywhere at any time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:This is bullshit, the bread is mixed in. If it were laid out in layers, yes, it would be a dessert sandwich. This is a good point. For a topping to become a filling, it must be contained within. A bread pudding is mixed with the sweet or savory portions, meaning that neither is really the topping or filling of the other, but they are both mixed into some bread-based matrix. I withdraw my previous agreement that bread pudding can be sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:This is a good point. For a topping to become a filling, it must be contained within. A bread pudding is mixed with the sweet or savory portions, meaning that neither is really the topping or filling of the other, but they are both mixed into some bread-based matrix. I withdraw my previous agreement that bread pudding can be sandwich. This should allow us to replace the stricture that the sandwich not be cooked with the filling with a clearer ban on "mixes" or matrices. I think there is something key in the assembly process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This should allow us to replace the stricture that the sandwich not be cooked with the filling with a clearer ban on "mixes" or matrices. I think there is something key in the assembly process. It's not that a sandwich cannot be cooked. It's that the sandwich cannot be assembled with a dough, the bread must be bread before the sandwich is cooked. A pudding is excluded because the bread, though cooked, does not contain the filling, it is used to give structure to a foodstuff rather than being a distinct envelope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Is Breadhat a sandwich (for a cannibal)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Some more discussion material:
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
For all your talk of constructing a less racist definition of sandwich, perhaps you should consider the inherent linguistic colonialism of enforcing your words and definitions upon food cultures that don't have them and don't need them. It's a classic colonialist move: interpreting, defining, and ordering a culture along more familiar lines in order to master it, while marginalizing its traditional meanings and values. Calling a taco a sandwich is a grotesque deformation of meaning and is an act of semiotic violence against traditional, non-euro food cultures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Some more discussion material: As a rule of thumb anything found in a grocer freezer is very loose with the definition of the product it identifies as. For instance "wyngz"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:For all your talk of constructing a less racist definition of sandwich, perhaps you should consider the inherent linguistic colonialism of enforcing your words and definitions upon food cultures that don't have them and don't need them. Wouldn't adopting the term sandwich blanket across cultures be in and of itself cultural appropriation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Wouldn't adopting the term sandwich blanket across cultures be in and of itself cultural appropriation? Perhaps, but 1., I think the tendency is, as shown in this thread, for the sandwich culture to impose itself upon other cultures, rather than them adopting the sandwich, and 2. even if it were cultural appropriation then historical power relationships would suggest that this appropriation is a tool of survival, of historical justice. And really I think one of my issues is the sandwich's claim to universality -- as if its vagueness is somehow its greatness, it's indeterminacy, a triumph.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Wouldn't adopting the term sandwich blanket across cultures be in and of itself cultural appropriation? This is more of a problem with english than cultural appropriation. I am trying to de-exoticise pan-cultural sandwich types. The sandwich in english has two meanings, that of a particular form as well as a general class of bread/filling combinations. By pointing out that these other objects fit within the broader definition of sandwich, I am trying to flatten the term and create broader cultural dialog in foodways. Sharkie posted:For all your talk of constructing a less racist definition of sandwich, perhaps you should consider the inherent linguistic colonialism of enforcing your words and definitions upon food cultures that don't have them and don't need them. Not at all. By communicating to native english speakers that people all over the world enjoy sandwiches as a quick, easy to make and tasty food item, it lessens the distance between us. We do not need to call tacos sandwiches to make them palatable. We just need to understand them as a thing similar to a sandwich. Some americans still do not eat tacos because they are too exotic, although they are identical in many ways to a sandwich. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Your entire conceit that the fact bread is sliced is, frankly, disastrous, and the training criteria you put forward are further evidence of your stupidity and ill breeding.quote:Is a hamburger a sandwich? yes Literally none of these things that you replied 'yes' to are sandwiches in any way. Let us instead of your unsystematic rambling, consider a more rigorous framework based in the best traditions of language and guided by real-world examples that would allow for a strict, unqualified system sandwich to then allow for further non-conforming forms through prefixed modifications. A system sandwich is a food item that consists of two slices of fresh bread, cut from a loaf, faces aligned but spaced no further then twice their combined crust-heights so as to contain immediately edible food items, which extend to no more than an eighth of the face-length past the crust edge in any face axis and no more than a half of the crust-height past the inner face of any slice in the crust axis. This system sandwich is the only thing that can be considered a sandwich in the unqualified sense. If I ask for "a sandwich", and you show me a hot dog, you are clearly wrong. If I ask for "a sandwich", and you show me a muffin, you are clearly wrong. Even if I ask for "a sandwich" and you give me a stale bread sandwich, you are clearly wrong. Now we can allow non-conforming sandwiches to use qualifiers: a toasted sandwich, for instance, is a sandwich that has been toasted as a single entity. A toast sandwich is a sandwich made of toasted rather than fresh bread but otherwise contains fresh ingredients. An open-faced sandwich is a sandwich minus the ultimate bread slice. And so on. The use of qualifiers to denote non-conformance is a long-celebrated tradition in the language, allowing a linguistic and instructive richness through the magic of simile without compromising the purity of the platonic (system) Sandwich. Note that it is common to use a contents descriptor prefix (CDP), either as a complete list (eg: lettuce, cheese, and tomato sandwich) or as a general class (eg: salad sandwich). Use of a CDP does not in any way invalid that sandwich's system status, although obviously it would be preferable to leave the contents descriptor as a postfix (a sandwich with lettuce, cheese and tomato) as that prevents listeners from being confused about the system status, and it allows serving staff to start in the correct headspace. As a further usage note, if a CDP is used it is preferable to use it BEFORE the NCQ: "a lettuce, cheese and tomato toasted sandwich" rather than "a toasted lettuce, cheese and tomato sandwich"; because it allows for ambiguity for the listener: is it a toasted sandwich with lettuce, or a system sandwich with toasted lettuce? chaosbreather fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Look, we are discussing this in D&D, so I think it's only appropriate to defer to the opinions of the finest political minds in the nation. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is one of those few men who have taken on this weighty task, as this definition is crucial to the understanding of liability for sales tax in states like Wisconsin which choose to tax sandwiches, and I think it behooves us to defer to his definition:Scott Walker posted:"Sandwich" means food that consists of a filling; such as meat, cheese or a savory mixture; that is placed on a slice, or between 2 slices; of a variety of bread or something that takes the place of bread; such as a roll, croissant or bagel. "Sandwich" includes, but is not limited to, pita sandwiches, gyros and pocket sandwiches. "Sandwich" does not include burritos, tacos, enchiladas, chimichangas, hors d'oeuvres, canapes, egg rolls, cookies, cakes, pies and similar desserts and pastries and food that is sold frozen. As you can see, by this definition, Hot Pockets™, which are sold frozen, are not sandwiches. However, the process of heating it up and then reselling it would be a suitably transformative process making the Hot Pocket™ into a sandwich. But if you consumed it without first engaging in a financial transaction to acquire the Hot Pocket™ after being heated in preparation for final human consumption, you would not actually be consuming a sandwich under the terms of this definition. It is not the financial transaction or the heating alone which make the Hot Pocket™ attain sandwich status, but the combination of the two. In addition to the Hot Pocket™ Question, this definition also clearly resolves the Eggs Benedict Question, as the proposed definition permits the use of a single slice of bread. What is notable here is that Mexican food, which would otherwise meet the criteria of an open-faced sandwich in the Taco Scenario, is explicitly called out as not belonging to the class of things called sandwiches. Given that this definition was written back in 1997, we can only speculate as to the reasons for this exclusion. Whether the exclusion was due to the cracker-like nature of the hard-taco-shell being insufficient to qualify as a bread substitute, or due to more insidious reasoning on Governor Walker's part, we can only guess. Now, it is worth noting that the bill that this definition was attached to was not actually passed into law. As such, some of you may argue that this definition is inadequate or otherwise unsupported, but rest assured that we need not only consider Governor Walker's definition; sagely figures like Antonin Scalia and Richard Posner have both weighed in on the issue as well, by commenting on the Massachusetts court case White City Shopping Center, LP v. PR Restaurants, LLC, 21 Mass. L. Rep. 565 (2006). In this case, the court was asked whether the lease of a space in a shopping center to the burrito chain Qdoba violated the terms of a lease granted to a company franchising a Panera Bread in the same shopping center. According to the terms of the lease, the shopping center would not lease space to any other entity for which more than 10% of sales would consist of sandwiches. Thus, the case struck at the very heart of the Burrito Question. The end result of the case concluded that the terms of the lease were not violated, as burritos did not fall under the definition of a sandwich, for which they referred to a Webster's dictionary definition of the term as encompassing "two thin pieces of bread, usually buttered, with a thin layer (as of meat, cheese, or savory mixture) spread between them". Those more eagle-eyed posters may have noticed that this definition closely resembles that of Governor Walker's proposed bill, but with one crucial exception: open-faced sandwiches are not included! For this reason, Judge Posner disagreed with Justice Scalia's reasoning (Scalia had separately praised the decision for relying on objective facts like a dictionary definition, instead of allowing the definition to change based on the whims of modern society). But the dictionary definition is supported by more than Webster's; as noted in the afore-linked blog post, the USDA's Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book explicitly defines a burrito in part as "a sandwich-like product", thus placing it in the set of things that are almost, but ultimately not, sandwiches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
As I said, there is a simple smell test that can be applied to any purported sandwich definition: if you order a sandwich, and you get a definition-compliant food item, do you feel you have got what you ordered? And that test belies an underlying truth that powers the System Sandwich Definition: "a sandwich" is the only way to order a system sandwich. If your definition includes, say, a taco and a burrito, how would you indicate that you want a system sandwich to a vendor that sells both? How would they label them? It's clear operationally, linguistically, historically and practically, my strict SSD is the one to beat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink you did not define the upper boundary limits of the distance between the two slices of bread. Thus any food objects that intersect the line drawn between any two slices of bread constitutes a sandwich. Congrats, you've made sandwiches of the world and of us all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:As I said, there is a simple smell test that can be applied to any purported sandwich definition: if you order a sandwich, and you get a definition-compliant food item, do you feel you have got what you ordered? And that test belies an underlying truth that powers the System Sandwich Definition: "a sandwich" is the only way to order a system sandwich. If your definition includes, say, a taco and a burrito, how would you indicate that you want a system sandwich to a vendor that sells both? How would they label them? It's clear operationally, linguistically, historically and practically, my strict SSD is the one to beat. The difficulty is that in vernacular english, a sandwich is both a specific item and general classification of items. A hamburger is a sandwich, but does not spring to mind when thinking of the granular sandwich, which would be more of a tuna salad or ham and cheese sandwich. Ordering a single sandwich is thus meant to refer to the lowest level of the sandwich heirarchy, as there are many terms and qualifiers which would specify the exact sort of sandwich. This is because people rarely have need to refer to the class Sandwichae in daily conversation, though the overall meaning can shift in the proper context. ComradeCosmobot posted:But the dictionary definition is supported by more than Webster's; as noted in the afore-linked blog post, the USDA's Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book explicitly defines a burrito in part as "a sandwich-like product", thus placing it in the set of things that are almost, but ultimately not, sandwiches. "Sandwich-like product" is clearly softpedaling meant to not upset the delicate midwestern sensibilites. If a gyro is a sandwich and a burrito is not, I fail to see how this definition can hold up to scrutiny, given that the only structural difference between them is the method of fold. I reject all traditionalist, outmoded interpretetations of a sandwich based in political correctness. Sandwiches are to be defined by taxonomic attributes and not by the decrees of the legal establishment, though they do have reasons to create a taxable definition of a sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:The difficulty is that in vernacular english, a sandwich is both a specific item and general classification of items. A hamburger is a sandwich, but does not spring to mind when thinking of the granular sandwich, which would be more of a tuna salad or ham and cheese sandwich. Ordering a single sandwich is thus meant to refer to the lowest level of the sandwich heirarchy, as there are many terms and qualifiers which would specify the exact sort of sandwich. This is because people rarely have need to refer to the class Sandwichae in daily conversation, though the overall meaning can shift in the proper context. This difficulty you speak of is entirely of your own making, and is totally avoided with the SSD. Making the true sandwich strictly defined so that the class of sandwich is contains only conforming system sandwiches we totally avoid your sloppy statements like 'a hamburger is a sandwich', which is totally non-self-consistent as I just demonstrated. Truth should hold coming or going; as I said, if you ask for a sandwich and it isn't a sandwich, then it was never a sandwich. Anything else you get the madness that you spew in every post, you might as well define 1 = 0. Your contention that a hamburger is somehow 'greater' or a superset of a sandwich in some nightmare hierarchy (trying to falsely impose psuedo-biological terms like 'sandwichae') is demonstrably incorrect. A sandwich contains fresh sliced bread. That is incontrovertible, because that's what you get when you ask for a sandwich. A hamburger does not. Therefore it is not a superset. It is a related lunch product, sandwich-esque, it is a patty sandwiched in a bun, you could even call it a hamburger-style sandwich. But it is not an unqualified sandwich because if you were to ask for an unqualified sandwich and receive a hamburger you would not have got what your ordered signifying that that label is incorrect. "Finish your burger", never "finish your sandwich". "That was a good burger", never "that was a good sandwich". There is no natural instance where one would ever use an unqualified sandwich to describe or indicate a hamburger except in a descriptive or prescriptive way, as in, "it's like a sandwich, but...", except of course in futile attempt to evade the unnatural laws of men rather than submit to the endless truth of the Universe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Is a club sandwich, because it itself is a sandwich, while containing two other sandwiches (the middle bread pulling double duty as top and bottom, a versatile slice, that one) therefore three sandwiches? Does this make ordering a single club sandwich impossible, as one contains three, yet if you order three club sandwiches you get nine? We need a mathematician to explain what kind of number system counts by 
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Is a gyro a sandwich? I've never conceived of them as such, googling it seems other people do but we don't need to be wedded to its status.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Would you agree though that a open faced sandwich is in fact a sandwich if you fold it with one hand and eat it similar to how you would eat a taco?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Would you agree though that a open faced sandwich is in fact a sandwich if you fold it with one hand and eat it similar to how you would eat a taco? Popular Thug Drink already agreed with that earlier in the thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
You lost me when you said the hot dog was a sandwich, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:You lost me when you said the hot dog was a sandwich, sorry. Sorry, but a hot dog is a sausage sandwich. Note : sausage in this instance is a rather fluid definition
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
You are literaly eliciting foodchat in a goon context that is not quarantined to GWS or otherwise deniable. This is probably a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:A sandwich contains fresh sliced bread. That is incontrovertible, because that's what you get when you ask for a sandwich. A hamburger does not. Therefore it is not a superset. Then you agree that when I bake fresh rolls, cut them in two, then stick seared ground beef between the two halves, I am eating a sandwich? Otherwise you've revealed a profound weakness in your supposedly authoritative means of classification.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
What's the difference between a hamburger and a meatloaf sandwich?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:What's the difference between a hamburger and a meatloaf sandwich? generally a meatloaf has more added to it, like breadcrumbs, some sort of sauce, vegetables a burger is really only a patty of ground beef, maybe seasoned
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
I'm so hungry
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:generally a meatloaf has more added to it, like breadcrumbs, some sort of sauce, vegetables Also cheese does not go on meatloaf
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Also cheese does not go on meatloaf Not always true
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Then you agree that when I bake fresh rolls, cut them in two, then stick seared ground beef between the two halves, I am eating a sandwich? Otherwise you've revealed a profound weakness in your supposedly authoritative means of classification. I certainly do not agree! If you think that a roll that is sliced in two the same as two slices of a 'loaf of bread' then you have problems no sandwich will solve. A loaf of bread and a roll are markedly different concepts, using different ingredients and baking techniques. Your attempt to conflate two totally separate bakery products that are different in size, shape, ingredients, density, mass, cost, utility and name is totally futile. If a roll was the same as bread, when I rock up to my favourite local sandwich bar their first question could not be "on bread or a roll". Furthermore if sandwiches were not made of bread the bread sold to make sandwiches would not be sold as 'sandwich bread' or bread with a 'sandwich cut'. You are on a path to a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
I am disappointed that noone has thought to apply the rules of taxonomy in an effort to clear up the confusion. If we consider variations in filing can be considered a species (so we can distinguish between a chicken filled taco, and one with a beef filling), we can then stepping up a rank and apply a Genus to the primary designation, for example Taco. As a taco is constructed with a singular outer membrane, and thus I would suggest a family name of perhaps monoderm. This allows us to group wraps, tacos, hotdogs, and other singularly wrapped foods of the family SANDWICH, which of course, is distinct from the classic (and original?) species. For example SANDWICH, Duoderm sandwich caseum is a humble cheese sandwich. A Hot Dog would then be SANDWICH, Monoderm hotdog capsicum for a chilli dog. I encourage further taxonomic discussion, so that these kinds of confusion can be finally laid to rest. e: incorrect bbcode fix! OzyMandrill fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
The op attempted to, unsuccessfully, declare there was some sort of biological nomenclature at play but he, just like you, have only proved it would inappropriate bordering on insanity. Zoological classification is horrendous even with animals with a causal evolutionary link. Add the nightmare of misunderstood parallel evolution, the mind-numbing history and politics involved in a 'stamp collecting' science and the administrative nightmare of keeping everyone on the same page and you begin to see the true horror that awaits zoologists. Real zoologists are desperately searching for alternative systems of classification, hoping probably in vain that genetic science may save them. It should be obvious to the reader that the last thing anyone should be advocating is the application of this vexatious ball of lies to anything that doesn't strictly require it, and the only sensible framework of use is the rigorous, provable, consistent, sane, simple, 1:1 logic of the SSD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
I would think you could have a sandwich with one bit of bread. The only functional difference between it and a "proper" sandwich is that you did not cut the bread into more bits first. You might cry foul at that, until you, the smart person you are, realize that our most commonly accepted form of sandwich is made of two bits of bread that were cut from the same loaf. One bit of bread can make a sandwich just fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Totally wrong. Your use of the word proper first indicates how your argument is flawed before it starts. An open faced sandwich is not a sandwich. Furthermore your baffling and misleading explanation is flawed: if I ask for a sandwich and I am presented with one whose slices were cut from different loaves, then it is clearly still what I asked for. If it is missing the lid slice, however, it is clearly not the entire sandwich I ordered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 15:18
|
|