posted
I refuse to read the ingredient list on a package of Oreos. I cannot imagine my life without them, and choose to remain ignorant as to their nutritional value.
Have you guys tried them frozen?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would anyone put something as yucky (and poisonous) as Oreo cookies in something as wonderful as ice cream.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somethings are simply a matter of taste and each person is entitled to their own opinion. But somethings are objective facts you can't disagree about them without being wrong.
The vileness of Oreo cookies fall in the latter category. If you disagree, you are wrong and possible even evil.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had some horrible 7-11 sandwich cookies the other day. Made me wish I had Oreos.
And I'm irked at 7-11. A month or two ago, all of their house nosh went kosher. Most of it, anyway. They had kosher versions of Twinkies. And now they've switched manufacturers or something, and nothing's kosher except the nasty sandwich cookies and the vafelim. What are vafelim in English, wafers?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Think of it as a blessing, Lisa. A whole bunch of CRAP that won't tempt you anymore.
I know. But... I'm so friggin over stressed that eating all that crap was my main outlet. Now what do I do? Go bang my head against a wall?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, but, dude, Newman Os are better... Waaaay better than Oreos. They make Oreos taste like... like... I don't know, but the Newman Os, especially the ones with chocolate cream! So good!
They even taste good in ice cream!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: THERE ARE MINT OREOS??
Indeed there are mint oreos and they are delicious! I usually only eat them in the summer for some reason...I don't know if they're sold any other time.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Somethings are simply a matter of taste and each person is entitled to their own opinion. But somethings are objective facts you can't disagree about them without being wrong.
The vileness of Oreo cookies fall in the latter category. If you disagree, you are wrong and possible even evil.
This is Gospel truth. May I quote you?
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Somethings are simply a matter of taste and each person is entitled to their own opinion. But somethings are objective facts you can't disagree about them without being wrong.
The vileness of Oreo cookies fall in the latter category. If you disagree, you are wrong and possible even evil.
posted
I do research on chocolate. There are quantifiable measures for good chocolate that Hershey's does not meet.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Rabbit, there are not. That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of in my life. Those are measures for a given standard. One which you happen to embrace, while I don't.
You sound like people who claim there's art that's objectively good. Feh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You sound like people who claim there's art that's objectively good. Feh.
If your argument is that Hershey's is good, that's one thing. But arguing that it is "good chocolate" is another. Chocolate is a specific kind of thing, with specific qualities that make it chocolate. Hershey's lacks those qualities. That doesn't mean that people can't enjoy it. People enjoy all kinds of things. I myself think starbursts are delectable, but they aren't good chocolate and neither is Hershey's.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. Let me rephrase it. I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life. Maybe there've been things equally ludicrous, but nothing surpasses the idea that there can be objective measures of taste.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You sound like people who claim there's art that's objectively good. Feh.
If your argument is that Hershey's is good, that's one thing. But arguing that it is "good chocolate" is another. Chocolate is a specific kind of thing, with specific qualities that make it chocolate. Hershey's lacks those qualities. That doesn't mean that people can't enjoy it. People enjoy all kinds of things. I myself think starbursts are delectable, but they aren't good chocolate and neither is Hershey's.
Chocolate is a specific class of things. Hershey bars are chocolate. Ghirardelli is chocolate. Dove bars are chocolate. They're all very different things, but they're still chocolate.
You want to tell me that some standards organization has declared that the word "chocolate" only applies to one specific thing, fine. That's "chocolate according to that standard", and a Hershey bar may not fit that. But that standard is not an objective one in any way.
In the US, you cannot, by law, sell milk from animals other than cows and call it simply "milk". "Milk", either by statute or regulatory fiat, means "cow milk". Any other type of milk must be specified. Sell goat milk as just milk, and you're in trouble.
Does this mean that goat milk isn't milk? No, it doesn't. It means that for certain uses, some people felt it was useful to limit the term so that it denoted a single thing, rather than a class of things. But that definition is only relevant within that context of usefulness.
Chocolate existed long before you and whatever group you're relying on decided it was only one member of the class. And it will exist long after everyone has forgotten about such a dumb standard.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Maybe she just thinks there are things that are objectionably chocolate.
But come on, Hershey's chocolate isn't chocolate? What use is an objective standard if it contradicts consensus reality?
Consensus of whom? By the consensus of Europeans, Heshey's is not chocolate.
But the consensus of the EU isn't what I was talking about. In order to even discuss chocolate we have to agree about what chocolate is and is not. This is not the same as saying what tastes good and what does not taste good, it is defining what taste "like chocolate" and what taste like something else. So for example if we add mint or orange flavor to chocolate, a lot of people will think it tastes better -- but it doesn't taste more like chocolate. Chocolate with mint and chocolate with orange are not pure chocolate -- they are something else.
Similar many people find truffles (which are a chocolate combined with dairy fats and other flavorings) to be better than pure chocolate. But that doesn't make them better chocolate. Adding the dairy fats and flavoring makes them something else.
And if you look at Hershey's, it contains ingredients (like butyric acid and vegetable fats) which are not in pure chocolate. You may like it better than pure chocolate, but that's irrelevant. Chocolate with butyric acid flavoring isn't objectively pure chocolate anymore than chocolate with mint flavoring is pure chocolate. Its something else. Whether or not you like that something else is a question of taste. Whether or not it is in fact pure chocolate, is not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'd say ice cream with peanuts in it is still ice cream, even though peanuts are not ice cream.
The same way, chocolate with butyric acid in it is still chocolate.
"Pure chocolate" may indeed be something that Hershey's chocolate is not, but that's not what you were saying before.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to point out right now that "pure" chocolate is disgusting, and therefore should not be used synonymously with "good" chocolate.
But can we all agree that there's a difference between good quality chocolate and good tasting chocolate, one of which is more subjective than the other?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But can we all agree that there's a difference between good quality chocolate and good tasting chocolate, one of which is more subjective than the other?
No, I think "quality" is too vague a term to make this something we can all agree on. Perhaps for some people the only quality that matters is the way it tastes. And more esoteric qualities like melting point and the 'snap' might also be quite subjective in how they are valued by different people.
What I would agree to is that you can define an objective standard and then measure against it, and that would be something different from assessing how well you like something.
But even so, I would hesitate to define terms so strictly that "Hershey makes good chocolate" is an objectively false statement. Or rather, I would not assume that someone was using an objective standard for "good chocolate" when expressing a personal opinion on the product, and I would not expect casual use of the word "chocolate" to exclude a Hershey's bar.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Yes there are quality standards that apply to chocolate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I'd just like to point out right now that "pure" chocolate is disgusting, and therefore should not be used synonymously with "good" chocolate.
Are you sure you aren't confusing "pure chocolate" with "cocoa liqueur"? They are not the same.
By pretty much every accepted definition if it isn't "pure chocolate" it isn't chocolate. Its chocolate candy, or a chocolate confection but not "chocolate".
Like I said, if we are even going to discuss the issue we need to agree on what is and is not chocolate. That requires some sort of quantifiable definition. That isn't simple because chocolate isn't a pure substance like water. But there are things that we will all agree are not chocolate and some things we can all agree are chocolate, so somewhere in between there must be a point where things stop being chocolate and start being something else. We can argue about where that point is but any point we select would be controversial (which is not at all the same as subjective). Since chocolate is desirable, things that fall just outside the boundary of what we agree is really chocolate are always going to argue that the boundary should be moved.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
*revils in the evilness*![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
