What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate". By US standards, more hershey's candies are "chocolate", but many don't qualify even under the extremely lax US standard. I don't know specifically about their dark chocolate kisses. If on the label, the are called chocolate candy kisses, that means that they don't qualify as chocolate under the legal definition.
Contrary to Lisa's assertion, this isn't a case where regulatory bodies are excluding things the label "chocolate" from things which have been long considered chocolate. What's actually happening is that companies like Hershey's have begun including ingredients in their chocolate candies which have long been agreed aren't ingredients of pure chocolate.
For the record, the mini Hershey bar that I just fished out of the Halloween leftovers is labeled "Milk Chocolate" not "Chocolate candy" or "Chocolate flavored candy."
I agree that Hershey's is not particularly good chocolate, but it seems to meet the US labeling standards, at least.
eta: The chocolate coating on Whoppers, however (also a Hershey product), aparently does not.
eata: Reese's and KitKat both do. And now I'm out of research options.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, silly as this debate is, it really stems from the very heart of the differences between Lisa and I. Based on what she has in previous debates, Lisa does not believe that anything has intrinsic value. (Actually, although it is not what she says I have inferred that she really believes that nothing except individual human beings, has intrinsic value. I come from the diametrically opposite world view, I believe everything has some intrinsic value.
From Lisa's perspective, value (of anything but individuals) is a purely subjective idea. It has no meaning outside the preferences of an individual subject. I disagree with that underlying assumption. I think all things have some value whether people value them or not.
But we've been down this road before so I know what where its heading. Lisa will do nothing but repeat "nothing has intrinisic value". I will attempt to explore the issue by raising questions. She will refuse to address my questions and eventually start calling me a monster for asking those questions. So no, I'm not heading down that road. Its pointless.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's extremely interesting actually. I didn't know that... Could you send me samples of those? What's the difference between them in terms of taste?
I always think no matter what a subject is, there's all of this stuff underneath it that I don't know about. Like guitars, moth cocoons, and pretty much everything. I'd like to know more.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I agree with both of you. Rabbit is being self-important and socially inappropriate, but she and I really do have a fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to "intrinsic values". I don't get how anything but a human life can have intrinsic value. A rock out on the sidewalk has value for me if I need it for something, or if I find it aesthetically pleasing. But if I don't need it or care about it, it has no value for me. Multiply "me" by everyone, and the same thing holds true. Absent someone valuing a thing, a thing can't be said to have value.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ]I agree with both of you. Rabbit is being self-important and socially inappropriate, but she and I really do have a fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to "intrinsic values".
You never miss an opportunity to make personal attacks on me and yet you have the audacity to call me "socially inappropriate. Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I said only that this was at the root of the disagreement between Lisa and I. Lisa has agreed. The reasons for your disagreement with me are entirely different.
You, like Lisa, never miss an opportunity to launch personal attacks on me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I said only that this was at the root of the disagreement between Lisa and I. Lisa has agreed. The reasons for your disagreement with me are entirely different.
You, like Lisa, never miss an opportunity to launch personal attacks on me.
It's interesting. Between the three of us, I think we've disproved the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" idea.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, if you weren't so consistently and simultaneously 1) self-important and prideful, 2) wrong, and 3) selfishly rude about both, you'd find the world a great deal more friendly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Rabbit, if you weren't so consistently and simultaneously 1) self-important and prideful, 2) wrong, and 3) selfishly rude about both, you'd find the world a great deal more friendly.
I find my world extremely friendly. Don't presume that others share your opinion of me. I simply can't understand the way you respond to me because no one else in my world sees me or treats me that way.
Up until you chose to insult my character, this thread was a pretty silly argument about chocolate and I thought everyone recognized it. I don't understand why you chose to make it personal.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone else tried the oreo brownie? I dont care what its made of if its smushed into a brownie.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I said only that this was at the root of the disagreement between Lisa and I. Lisa has agreed. The reasons for your disagreement with me are entirely different.
You, like Lisa, never miss an opportunity to launch personal attacks on me.
It's interesting. Between the three of us, I think we've disproved the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" idea.
Sun Tzu never fought battles on a forum.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, as long as we're arguing chocolate, can anyone help me clarify me just what is meant by Belgian chocolate?
Here's the deal: I am helping plan a bday party for a friend who requested a chocolate fountain. The friend who is hosting the party happens to own a chocolate fountain which she has never used.
The directions say that you should either use: a. Belgian chocolate or b. Chocolate chips mixed w/ canola oil
Naturally, option a sounds vastly more appealing. It has something to do with the cocoa butter content of the chocolate.
So I did some googling and from what I can tell Godiva and one other brand whose name I can't remember now -- Leosomething? -- are both Belgian chocolate.
My questions are: can I go to my local grocery store and purchase Godiva or any other brand of Belgian chocolate, or do I have to go to a specialty store? Do you know of any other brands that are Belgian? Does Trader Joe's have it? I know they have Swiss but it's apparently not the same thing.
Or -- have you had experience w/ a chocolate fountain and found it works just fine w/ Cadbury or something? Any feedback gratefully appreciated.
I just have to add that I think it sounds like a disgusting thing to build a party around, but whatever, it's not my birthday. Blood sugar crash, here I come!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chocolate fountains can be pretty fun (if messy). It is sort of like fondue only not hot. You have skewers with pieces of fruit and cake or marshmallows that you dunk.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
He also never compared Hershey's dark chocolate kisses or Valrhona 'Gran Couva" 64% Cocoa dark chocolate.
Would care to speculate whether or not he would have found the quality of the two chocolates subjective or objective?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uprooted, I have really no idea what your fountain means by "Belgian Chocolate". "Belgian Chocolate" is any chocolate made in Belgium. Trader Joes does sell a nice Belgian Chocolate.
Chocolate chips don't melt like normal chocolate coverture. I'm not sure exactly why, but melted chocolate chips are a lot more viscous than melted chocolate coverture. I suspect that its something they do to the chips so they retain their shape during baking. It may have to do with the cocoa butter content but I haven't been able to verify that.
I don't understand why they would specify "Belgian Chocolate" rather than "Chocolate coverture". I haven't noticed a big difference in the melting properties of "Callibaut" (a belgian chocolate) and "Guitard" (an American Chocolate).
I'd worry about running any pure chocolate in a fountain. Chocolate has a very unusual phase diagram. The friction involved in pumping it through the fountain could seed fat crystals and cause the fountain to plug or even erupt. You can add vegetable oil to solve that problem, but I'd probably go with Ghee or Cream instead.
You do need to be a careful if you go with cream. Never add cream to melted chocolate, the water will react with the starches in the chocolate and make a big mess. If you add the melted chocolate slowly to the warm cream, you won't get that problem.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, thanks -- going to look up " chocolate coverture." I probably won't be going with any variations like cream, as delicious as that sounds, that aren't specified on the directions.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We used grapeseed oil, since it's one of the oils with basically no flavor. I know it sounds gross, but it thins out the chocolate to make it flow better in the fountain. It tasted great. (We did use high quality milk chocolate, not chocolate chips, though.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if there is an error in the instructions since I think you would need to add some oil to any kind of melted chocolate before using it in a fountain. Is it possible that the "mixed with canola oil" should have applied to both options a and b?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen the instructions, just wrote down what my friend w/ the fountain told me over the phone. I think I'll ask her for brand info and see if I can find out more about it. Thanks all. dkw, I know if KQ were here she'd second your grapeseed oil recommendation!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia seems to agree that coverture chocolate is what's indicated, especially "gourmet Belgian couverture chocolate." So where do I get that? A party/candy making type store?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or go to a store that sells chocolate fountains -- they often will have cans of pre-mixed fountain chocolate.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've started using grapeseed oil, just because it was really cheap at TJ's. It smells just like EVOO to me, so I use them interchangeably.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love grapeseed oil, because it has a high smoke point. When I cook with olive oil, it sets off the smoke alarm. Grapeseed oil doesn't do that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Wikipedia seems to agree that coverture chocolate is what's indicated, especially "gourmet Belgian couverture chocolate." So where do I get that? A party/candy making type store?
If you were in Utah, I'd recommend "Baker's C&C", which is a Bakers supply store. They had a similar store in seattle that specialized in cake decorating and candy making supplies. In Montana, I was able to get the Food Coop to special order 5 kg blocks of Callebaut chocolate for my Christmas chocolate making extravaganza. Trader Joes milk chocolate from Belgium is very likely the same stuff. TJ's sells it in 500 g bars.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Chocolate fountains can be pretty fun (if messy). It is sort of like fondue only not hot. You have skewers with pieces of fruit and cake or marshmallows that you dunk.
Hershey's fountain, and chunks of banana to dip... priceless.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I love grapeseed oil, because it has a high smoke point. When I cook with olive oil, it sets off the smoke alarm. Grapeseed oil doesn't do that.
Yeah, it's really good for searing.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bananas are nasty. Strawberries, chunks of pinapple, or orange slices are yummy. And bits of angel food cake.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Totally on Rabbit's side on this one (which is not surprising that I also find myself on the opposite side from Lisa and Katharina).
Chocolate is a specific thing, much like "beer" and "wine" are. Malt beverages and ciders are not beer, and a "wine cooler" is not wine. If you change around what makes a thing a thing... you end up with a different thing.
You can also call something by a name (e.g. Malibu Rum) and have it not actually be that thing (Malibu is not made with sugar cane, and is therefore not actually rum).
While many Americans equate "chocolate candy" with "chocolate", this is not universally accepted. Many Americans also use the word "soccer" when nearly everyone else in the world calls it "football"... simply because they choose to define "football" as something entirely different.
Using "chocolate" as an umbrella term to cover all things that taste like chocolate (e.g. Lindt bars, Hershey kisses, Bosco syrup, Oreos, chocolate ice cream, etc) is fine for common parlance... but that usage is essentially useless when discussing the relative quality of types of chocolate. You need to start with a base definition, as Rabbit attempted (which was subsequently met with vehement objection).
It's like talking about relative qualities of wines, and having someone jump in talking about Arbor Mist or Sangria (which are wine mixed with other things). Or talking about the quality of beer, and having someone jump in talking about cider or hard lemonade.
White chocolate, dark chocolate, milk chocolate, mint chocolate, etc... are all different things, and are made differently. One may enjoy one or all of them, but comparing them with one another is difficult without starting with a baseline for comparison.
In the beer world, ales differ greatly from lagers, for instance... and wheat beers differ greatly from those made with barley. Comparing a chocolate candy to a pure chocolate would be like comparing a raspberry wheat beer with an imperial stout. One may like the former better than the latter, but there really isn't a basis of comparison as they are made entirely differently.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the chocolate fountain story: I priced some of the pourable chocolate and ended up just using Ghirardelli chocolate chips (mix of milk and semisweet) and oil, which worked just fine and tasted great. Thanks for the feedback. Everyone brought different dippers, everything from frozen cream puffs to strawberries to pretzels. It was fun.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
