Is a burrito a sandwich?

>IF IT TASTES BETTER WITH HONEY THEN IT'S A FRUIT, IF IT TASTES BETTER WITH GRAVY THEN ITS A VEG.

But I like to eat carrots with honey

Am I a retarded faggot?

Does that make tomato also a cake then?

You're here aren't you?

when you assume everyone has your flaws it's generally called projecting, you should look into it

YES

I'M BRITISH LET ME HAVE MY NICE SUNDAY ROASTS

But I have no flaws.

Yaaaaaasss
#FLAWLESS

It all comes out the same, so who gives a fuck?

No, and there is a simple as fuck reason why.

Leavened = Bread = Sandwich
Unleavened = Wrap

A burrito is a wrap.

depends on your alignment

Yes, it's a sandwich based on cylindrical (r, θ,φ) coordinates.

we get it you took calc II, congrats

you fucking idiot, eww

anything beyond structural purity is heresy

How the fuck is a sub not a sandwich?

3 in the top left are the only acceptable categories

This whole series of charts is raw bullshit.

Their methodology is stupidly obvious. "Find ONE example of a X, and then count every deviation from it as WRONG."

Most obvious in the one where they say Chicken Noodle Soup is the only true soup.

literal retard detected, they aren't saying other sandwiches are wrong but different according to how "traditional" you are

it's not sliced bread

And yet it is explicitly advocating what are is considered canon by using words like "classic", "purist", "traditional", without any justification for it.

Also why is hotdog under Ingredient Neutral and not Ingredient Purist? Are hot dogs not meat? Same for burritos. Ground meat is meat.

And how the fuck does a waffle fall under "structure purist"? A structure purist would be fine with "bread/baked product"? How about baked beans, can that be a "container" too?

This chart is raw shit and you know it.

Is it because it's not fully sliced?

>Being a faggot is a flaw
You piece of shit.

this chart is shit
that said, everything in this chart is a sandwich, but for example a calzone is not a sandwich, because a calzone must be cooked in order to become food*. I believe this to be the only relevant line delineating sandwich/non sandwich, and that it covers most weird edge cases like filled donuts and the like.

*within reason. I know you CAN eat raw dough, but most probably don't want to

opinions?

With a sandwich you sandwich an ingredient between two things. A taco holds ingredients; a burrito is just a bigger taco
Functionfags>Formfags

Actually you know what, looking at this again, a pop tart is not a sandwich, because it is a pre-made item that was cooked, not assembled, to reach its final state.

my apologies for this error.

>>Being a faggot is a flaw
>You piece of shit.

it certainly is, go munch on some cock somewhere else sissy boy and let the real men talk

is more of a kebab

>Supressing latent homo urges this much
Just fuck a trap, it's technically not gay.

See: Leavened vs Unleavened determines if it's a sandwich.

Filled donuts aren't sandwiches because they completely cover their fillings. Same reason Calzones (and I guess also burritos) aren't sandwiches.

It's simply food science.

I disagree with your (and 's) reasoning w/r/t leavened bread, user. I think that even most sandwich purists will allow that, for example, a BLT between two small tortillas or between two pieces of matzoh is a sandwich, albeit a terrible one. Roti bread/tortillas are much more usually wrapped around the ingredients in one unbroken piece, I agree, but matzoh is not, and all can most definitely be used to make a structurally pure sandwich, while being unleavened.

I also think, but this is much more subjective, that wraps are a subclass of sandwiches. Sandwiches IMO are defined by being a hand-food which is held onto by some protective "wrapper" which is the only part that the hand comes in contact with. That is, by virtue of being encased or supported by some sort of dry, easily held "structural element" (usually bread, of course), any food may be simply made into a sandwich.

The "simply" part is also distinct and important. If you are baking a food item wrapped in dough (like a pasty or pie), and only afterwards can you eat it with your hands, it cannot be called a sandwich, because only the cooking made it a finished, edible product, not the "sandwiching".

>I also think, but this is much more subjective, that wraps are a subclass of sandwiches. Sandwiches IMO are defined by being a hand-food which is held onto by some protective "wrapper" which is the only part that the hand comes in contact with. That is, by virtue of being encased or supported by some sort of dry, easily held "structural element" (usually bread, of course), any food may be simply made into a sandwich.

This definition means a rolled pizza slice would be a sandwich which is stupid

Wrong, because a pizza had to be cooked in order to become edible food (see third paragraph of post you replied to) and so no variation of a pizza slice by itself, rolled or otherwise, can be called a sandwich.

An argument could be made that something sandwiched between or within a pizza slice is a sandwich, by my earlier definition. In fact, somewhere in italy I was sold something like a pizza burrito, containing within the pizza slice ham, cheese, and tomato, and some sort of dressing. I think I'd count that as a sandwich, but not just a rolled up slice of pizza by itself.

>I think that even most sandwich purists will allow that, for example, a BLT between two small tortillas or between two pieces of matzoh is a sandwich, albeit a terrible one.

I'm arguing that it's not (and also I think most sandwich purists would not accept that Quesadillas or tacos are sandwiches. Obviously this is the very point of contention, and I'm arguing that leavened vs unleavened is the exact right place to draw the line.

>and only afterwards can you eat it with your hands, it cannot be called a sandwich, because only the cooking made it a finished, edible product, not the "sandwiching".

Grilled cheese sandwich. It's not a grilled cheese sandwich until you cook (grill) it into a finished product. So is a grilled cheese sandwich not a sandwich? (Note that it's perfectly reasonable to say "yes, it's not a sandwich". Just because it has X in its name doesn't mean it's definitely an X. I would say that an ice cream sandwich is also not a sandwich. But I want to know where you draw the line, so I can argue for why it's not as good as my line. But also by your definition an ice cream sandwich is a sandwich, which opens up... a lot of doors. Like an oreo being a sandwich.)

>I'm arguing that it's not (and also I think most sandwich purists would not accept that Quesadillas or tacos are sandwiches.
I'm not sure if you're making a separate point to mine, or if you're rebutting my "BLT between two pieces of tortilla" idea. Because a taco definitely isn't what I meant (although I do consider it an EXTREMELY SHITTY sandwich).

I think it's unreasonable to say that a sandwich between two hard pieces of bread like matzoh is not a sandwich on the basis of unleavened-ness. I do respect your commitment to the line you've drawn though. I think this may be the point where the division is governed solely by opinion, but can you refute that a matzoh BLT is not a sandwich and why you think so outside of the hardline leavenedness point, or can you clarify your point on leavendness? So far I'm not convinced.

>Grilled cheese sandwich
A grilled cheese sandwich is 100% a sandwich, and this does not refute my definition. Here is why. The item of food in question is a "cheese sandwich", that being some cheese surrounded by a structural element (almost always two pieces of bread). You are correct in saying that it is not a grilled cheese sandwich before being grilled, but we are not talking about a sandwich of grilled cheese, a "grilled cheese" sandwich. We are talking about a cheese sandwich which has been grilled, a grilled "cheese sandwich". I know this is an autistic way of writing this out.

My point is, it was a sandwich before ever being grilled, and grilled is just an adjective describing a process performed to an extant sandwich, not a process which creates an item of food that would not exist unless it were so processed (cooked). Many sandwiches are pressed, grilled, fried, griddled, or otherwise processed in the final stage before being eaten. You could have a "grilled BLT", but it would have been a BLT, a complete sandwich, before being grilled, and so the grilled cheese sandwich is an edible cheese sandwich before being grilled.

My last post was too autistically long to fit this in, so, in addition, I do consider an ice cream sandwich to be a sandwich (a very good example of one, rendering an otherwise non-portable food into a hand food perfectly).

I also grudgingly accept that an oreo is a sandwich, by the strictest application of my definition, though that does rub me the wrong way, and I feel it could be argued that an oreo is a single factory assembled food item.

Reddit spacing and bad opinions go hand in hand I suppose. Fucking everyone has the same idea of a traditional sandwich, bread, slices of meat, and vegetables. Hot dogs are ingredient neutral because it's meat, but ground up bits shoved in a sausage casing. Waffles are structural purist because they are flat pieces of bread more or less.
>baked beans
Yeah dude try making a sandwich with baked beans as the bread. Tell me how that goes.

I fucking hate rap, eminem is a sellout

Is an ice cream cone sandwich? It is a non portable food that is encased/supported by a dry, easily held structural element.

I think that an ice cream cone is pushing it, and probably not a sandwich, due to the unique nature of the ball-on-a-cone thing that ice cream cones have going on. If you pushed me, I guess I'd say it fits, but really the structure is so removed from the premise of a sandwich that it seems iffy.

This makes me consider rewording the definition so as to not include an ice cream cone. Are there other examples of foods which follow the paradigm "food supported by structural element", but which differ so radically from the platonic ideal sandwich that the mind recoils at the idea? If you can think of some, I would be interested to see if they share any commonalities which could be rooted out of the definition.

I think that many other things that fit such a definition are far easier for me to classify. Ice cream cone is a very good point!

of course, why else would it be in the biscuit aisle

Is a sandwich a sandwich?

......

you're all retarded
>to sandwich
does not mean
>to wrap
eat a dick

meat or filling wrapped in a glutinous baked bread.

The Earl of Sandwich has legally endorsed flat bread as bread.

is an open faced sandwich not a sandwich, then?

the exception to the rule is WRITTEN in the name and it is no longer, by definition, a standard sandwich and is something else entirely.

It's a circumcised sandwich. A onewich.

I mean, there's a distinction. It's a sandwich that is open faced

I will accept no exceptions, nor do I need to, because open faced sandwiches are sandwiches, which puts the criteria for an open faced sandwich into the definition for sandwiches in general. That being done, the outdated earl of sandwich definition goes out the window, as nothing is literally "sandwiched" in an open face.

>this is a pear
>no it's an apple, the definition of apple is outdated and is no longer applicable because I say so
ok yeah good line of logic my guy

>literally not even reading my argument

Thank you ms. Newman, but no. What I said was "this asian pear is somewhat different from most pears, but it is still a pear, and thus the definition of pears must be expanded to include the asian pear".

foxnews.com/story/2006/11/10/massachusetts-judge-settles-dispute-by-ruling-burrito-is-not-sandwich.html

mmmmm

Nobody will ever refer to an open faced sandwich as just a sandwich. The full phrase is necessary. It isn't so much a sandwich as a distinct type of food which includes the word sandwich as a descriptor.

Nonsense, I can say I've had a cheese sandwich, when I only used one slice of bread with cheese placed atop it, and it will make perfect sense. Perhaps I'm calorie counting. I've seen a girl take the top bun off of a hamburger, and still refer to it as a hamburger. If the qualifier here is the language used to refer to the thing, your argument is basically irrelevant.

In Russian, the word for sandwich (the actual word, not just the english word "sandwich" with a bad accent, which the new generation has taken to using), has always been бyтepбpoд--buterbrod, from the german buter brot, meaning buttered bread. The word refers generically to all sandwiches in all forms. Therefore, buttered bread is a sandwich. It goes both ways.

So would you say a grilled cheese or oven baked BLT is not a sandwich?

So is a quesadilla a sandwich?

it's a quesadilla :^)

I have addressed this already here: Grilled cheeses and oven baked BLT's are already sandwiches before being cooked, is what it boils down to, but I get into more minute detail in that post.

If Grilled Cheeses and Oven Baked BLTs count as sandwiches before being cooked and then that status carries over post cooking, then shouldn't that same logic apply to poptarts?

Cereal, when poured on top of the milk, sandwiches the milk down into the bowl due to gravity. It doesn't need to be cooked to reach its final edible form. Cereal is a sandwich.

QED.

Sweet cake tastes better with tea
Are all sweet cakes biscuits?

I see the misunderstanding, I am not talking about an untoasted pop tart vs a toasted one. A pop tart is, before being originally baked in a factory, some dough, which is then cooked and filled. That is why it is not a sandwich, because a pop tart is not food until it has been cooked, and it's filling is then injected into it as opposed to it being assembled. I suppose you can consider a pop tart a frosting sandwich if you put frosting on top of it, but the pop tart itself is not one, it is a baked pastry.

Wrong, a sandwich is a food which is contained or supported by a structural element, which allows it to be eaten without utensils or containers.

i hope youre all sandwiched in prison

I'se agree wit dat plan!

I mean, let's be honest. We're all autistically arguing here.

I will say that while I do disagree with your definition, it is internally consistent. Especially since you're allowing ice cream sandwiches and oreos to be sandwiches.

That said, as says, ice cream cones.

And here's one big issue in your definition. You're essentially running by "blah held by hand-holdable element, in which both ingredients and 'cover' are edible". Already you're saying that the following are sandwiches.
-Tacos
-Burritos
-Oreos
-Ice Cream cones
-Wraps

By that definition, we can also add that the following are also sandwiches:
-Taco bowls
-Veggie wraps
-Deviled eggs
-Waffle & syrup

And then we can go ahead and add things like:
-Pizza isn't a sandwich because the whole thing is baked. But what if pizza is just the "structural element", and then we add chili flakes on it?
-What about chips&dip, where the chip is the structural element and the dip is the ingredient being supported? Same with "nuggets and sauce", "fries and ketchup" etc
-Sushi. Seaweed wrap, and rich/fish. Not structural enough? Sushi roll/cone.

The question is - do you accept all these as sandwiches?

And on the flip side, I'd like you to tackle my leavened covering argument.

Hello, I am and , but not .

I think that most of your points address me, so I will respond to you.
>-Taco bowls
>-Veggie wraps
>-Deviled eggs
>-Waffle & syrup
Are all sandwiches.

Pizza itself is not a sandwich. However, when you pour chili flakes on it, it is a sandwich. A chili flake sandwich.
A chip with dip on it is a dip sandwich. Nugget > ketchup also.
A sushi roll (both the entire roll and a single cut piece) is a sandwich.

To be honest with you, I've now accepted that if my model is to hold, I have to accept a lot of things I don't like, including ice cream cones. I am ok with that.

Please remind me what your leavened covering argument was specifically, I am interested in replying to it!

Tomatoes and honey, ewwww, gross.

Yes, it is objectively a fruit, but honey with the sour acids, nasty.

The more I think about this the more it doesn't even make sense. Take structure neutral/ingredient rebel. How could someone think an ice cream taco is a sandwich but think a chicken wrap is going too far? A wrap is certainly more structurally rebellious than a sub sandwich but how is it more structurally rebellious than a taco?

Is ice an acceptable pizza topping?