OK THAT'S IT. ALL THESE "_____ ARE TECHNICALLY A SANDWICH!" ARGUMENTS ARE ASININE TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY.
-
-
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
THE INTENT OF THESE ARGUMENTS IS (SUPPOSEDLY) TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFICITY OF LANGUAGE AND FOOD DEFINITIONS.
1 reply 2 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
THE ACTUAL POINT OF FOOD DEFINITIONS IS TO, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATE WHAT THINGS ARE.
2 replies 4 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
Sure, but that's not really fair. Like any taxonomy, there's friction between utility (read: ease of communication) and exactness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HickNurwitz @FilmCritHULK
Like, if I said, "Do you want to watch a movie?" and then showed you 18 minutes of popcorn popping, you'd be pretty confused.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HickNurwitz @FilmCritHULK
But that wouldn't make POPCORN POPPING any less of a movie in rigid technical terms.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HickNurwitz
I.E. WANT TO WATCH A MOVIE? IT'S THIS WEIRD EXPERIMENTAL SHORT, ETC.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
But there are situations where having a rigid taxonomy is more useful than in casual conversation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HickNurwitz @FilmCritHULK
Like, were there to be a sandwich tax imposed by the government, it'd be pretty useful to know what counts and what doesn't.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HickNurwitz @FilmCritHULK
But I agree, short of hypothetical situations or writing the encyclopedia of food, there's isn't much practical use.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
AND THE THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO FOOD, IT'S NOT LIKE THE SCIENCE OF UNDERSTANDING ANIMALS AND PHYLUM AND BIOLOGY.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.