Sandwiches

At first I thought that only the structure of a sandwich is what matters; That so long as there were ingredients separated between 2 pieces of bread, it made it a sandwich. if it was bread sliced part way through like a sub, it wasn't a sandwich as it wasn't properly separated like a sandwich, and so it was instead it's own unique thing; a sub. This would apply to all the other similar food structures, ex. if shaped like a taco, it's a taco, a wrap is a wrap. However if the person decided to use different food ingredients from traditional sandwiches and still keep the original form it would in my mind still be a sandwich, because sandwiches are sandwiches because they "sandwich" between. Wraps are wraps because they "wrap" around. Interestingly enough I could create new words to continue the point; to "sub" would now mean to slice bread (or something similar) like a sub partway, and to "taco" is to make in the shape of a taco.

I liked this definition because it neatly placed everything into it's own general catagory, which is naturally how I felt it should be.

(1/2)

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sandwich
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich
web.archive.org/web/20090215032951/http://boston.com:80/business/articles/2006/11/10/arguments_spread_thick/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

But after further exploration I realised I had been confusing "a sandwich" with "sandwiching between". If sandwiching between is what made something a sandwich, any food that sandwiched something between could be considered a sandwich! A sub would actually be a sandwhich as it is still technically sandwiching the ingrediants, and so would a hot dog, a taco, and a wrap! In fact, you simply putting your hands against your face momentarily would turn it into a sandwich. This destroyed the neat order I had initially liked, and therefore removed any reason for me to want to continue using such a system. But I switch not only because it lost it's appeal, but because that system is now revealed to actually be misguided and illogical. A sandwich was never a sandwich because it sandwiches something together, a sandwich is a sandwich because a sandwich is a real physical object that something could be compared to and be.

Now a sandwich does sandwich together 2 pieces of bread, but it also does more than that, it falls neatly in line with what our idea of what a sandwich is.
In conclusion I realise now that what I'd been doing is simply calling anything that is sandwiched, a sandwich similar to how people call two cars crashing together a "carcrash" instead of refering it to the real object it is, such as a BLT sandwich.

I am now a sandwich traditionalist; a sandwich is only a sandwich if it has the form and ingredients of a real sandwich. The other foods are sandwiched, but they are NOT a sandwich until they start getting called a sandwich.

(2/2)

Im a hardline traditionalist. I don't know what you all posted because i literally just woke up and I'm not reading that shit. However, I feel as if we disagree on what a sandwich is

naw m8, i'm traditionalist too.

What is this?

it looks like a long sandwich. I'd say it's a sub but it the two pieces of bread aren't connected like one.

What is this?
Are tortillas not bread?

if it were bread it would be called "bread". It is wheat based and can be used as bread, but it isn't bread.

Does open-faced count?

Rye is called rye.
Is that not tortilla bread?

that's not a sandwich, but I suppose you could still call it an open face sandwich anyways

also that doesn't seem like it would stay on very well

actually they'd call it rye bread, but I think I see your point.

How flat does it have to be to stop being bread and start being a tortilla?

if you want to use tortilas, you would call it a tortila sandwich, or something sandwiched in tortilas, or some unique name.

The fact that you use bread is implicit when talking of sandwiches

A sandwich MUST contain the following:
>Sliced leavened bread
Rolls, cobs, muffins, baps, subs are NOT sandwich material.
>A filling
This can be literally anything. Sweet, savoury, doesn't matter.
Eg:
>Jam + Sliced Bread = Jam Sandwich

Anything else is it's own defined .
Eg:
>Bacon + Sliced Bread = Bacon Sandwich
>Bacon + Bread Roll = Bacon Roll
>Bacon + Sub Roll = Bacon Sub
>Bacon + Oven Bottom Muffin = Bacon Muffin

A sub.

>Are tortillas not bread?
This is a self-answering question.
Tortillas are tortillas. They are thier own .
And even if they are techincally a type of bread, they are neither leavened nor sliced and thus can never be a sandwich, unless they are used as a filling for one.
But that begs the question of why would you want such recursive carbohydrate nonsense in first place.

The fact that you use bread is implicit when talking of sandwiches
This guy gets it.

it's based on how it looks, but ultimately is arbitrarily defined. I'm enjoying this btw

I guess really what it comes down to is; in this culture, it is implicit that a sandwich is a traditional sandwich and not those other types. Truly what is or isn't a sandwich is subjective, meaning we as a society are no more obligated to call a sandwich a sandwich than a society is obligated to making their cars drive on the left side of the road vs the right.

That doesn't mean you can just go around driving on whatever side of the road you want though! Different societies have decided arbitrarily on which side of the road to drive on and you're just going to have to go along with that. If you don't, you'll run into trouble, be it you someone running into oncoming traffic or people misunderstanding what you mean by sandwich.

>the zen of sandwich

This is what we are trying to realize.

As a society, we agree on which side of the road to drive. We fail to agree on the definition of a sandwich.
>drive on this side of the road
Is not subjective.
This discussion is to reach an objective understanding of what a sandwich is, or come to terms with the fact that no definition exists.
And if we can't define something as simple as a sandwich, can we really be said to understand anything?

which side of the road we drive on is beyond reasonable doubt objectively known, but how it was determined was arbitrary and subjective. Words in a society are objectively known, but they were arbitrarily and ultimately subjectively decided upon.

Basically what you're referencing is the limitations of language, but regardless of limitations, society as a whole tends to use certain words in certain ways, and if you don't want to come into conflict in society or make people misunderstand what you mean when you say sandwich, you will conform and use the word in the accepted way.

a sandwich might be a real thing, but the words used to describe it and name it are subjective. it's not truly called a sandwich; to my knowledge there is no true name, we just happen to call it a sandwich.

I guess driving on 1 side of the road would lead to more or less accidents than driving on the other, and using certain names could result in a better society than if you use a different name, so in a sense you could make an argument that there is an objectively proper lane to use, and proper name for things, but the problem with this argument is that it is clearly beyond the scope of human knowledge, which makes it effectively subjective even if it isn't truly subjective.

I don't remember exactly how it happened and I'm not going to bother to research it, but there is reasons why we drive on the side of the road that we do. People used to guide horse-drawn carriages on their left side and would walk down the center of the road to stay out of the mud. Why the last side? I don't remember but for some reason, before cars were even invented, it switched in the U.S. People started walking their carriages on the right side, but still walked down the center of the road.
The rest of the world kept doing it the old way but as the British Empire started to shrink and their foreign colonies began to become independent, around the same time the U.S. was becoming a world power, WWI-WWIIIsh era, the former British colonies decided to start driving on the other side. This was both to emulate the U.S. and to say fuck you to Britain. It was seen as proof of independence from the Brits.

Anyway, there is no rhyme or reason for how we define sandwiches, making it completely subjective. Unlike which side of the road is driven on, which evolved over time and with purpose.

Everything is a sandwich regardless of if it has ingredients or is sandwiched :)

there can be a certain degree of purpose behind subjectivity too though, it's just it's based off of human authority and is therefore worthless.

That being said I will admit that it is actually far more possible to determine that one side of the road is better than the other side by comparing things like statistics and theories, but what a word should be called to represent something is far beyond human comprehension, still making it effectively subjective. but you actually seem to agree that it is subjective... and that's part of my point.

Words are actually subjective meaning you don't really ought to do it any certain way, but society does think in a certain way and so you should still conform with how society uses words unless you're okay with being misunderstood by it. People in society do tend to agree that there should be a certain type of logic behind how words are defined in taxonomy, and I assume a food taxonomist would classify a sandwich in traditional terms, if not and most other food taxonomists agree with him, then I am willing to change my definition of sandwich, but until then I will be a sandwich traditionalist.

You're assuming what food taxonomists believe. I'm saying there is no good definition for a sandwich, which means society has not agreed on what it is. So you're decision to only accept the traditionalists stance has no more authority behind it than the position of the Radical Sandwich Anarchist.

>You're assuming what food taxonomists believe.
thing is this is something we actually can find out if we just look up a food taxonomist's definition of a sandwich, i'm just too lazy to look it up so I assume that they would say i'm right.

>which means society has not agreed on what it is.
Really that's life, even if we had an "agreed upon" definition of sandwich, there would always be people that disagreed.

>So you're decision to only accept the traditionalists stance has no more authority behind it than the position of the Radical Sandwich Anarchist.
Yes, because it is subjective. I implicitly admitted that already by saying it was subjective. What I also said was that society tends to think certain ways and you gotta conform to those ways or else they will misunderstand you, which is why you should be a sandwich traditionalist anyways. I also happen to believe that it would be better to work within a logical system, which is why I would be willing change my definition of sandwich if a food taxonomist gave me a good reason to. Sandwiches do not need to be called sandwiches, but a person who doesn't call a sandwich a sandwich while living in a society that calls sandwiches sandwiches is silly.

> (You)
>>You're assuming what food taxonomists believe.
>thing is this is something we actually can find out if we just look up a food taxonomist's definition of a sandwich, i'm just too lazy to look it up so I assume that they would say i'm right.
You're assuming you're right, but you're not. I have looked up the definition of a sandwich and a pop tart qualifies.
>
>>which means society has not agreed on what it is.
>Really that's life, even if we had an "agreed upon" definition of sandwich, there would always be people that disagreed.
>
>>So you're decision to only accept the traditionalists stance has no more authority behind it than the position of the Radical Sandwich Anarchist.
>Yes, because it is subjective. I implicitly admitted that already by saying it was subjective. What I also said was that society tends to think certain ways and you gotta conform to those ways or else they will misunderstand you, which is why you should be a sandwich traditionalist anyways. I also happen to believe that it would be better to work within a logical system, which is why I would be willing change my definition of sandwich if a food taxonomist gave me a good reason to. Sandwiches do not need to be called sandwiches, but a person who doesn't call a sandwich a sandwich while living in a society that calls sandwiches sandwiches is silly.

Repeat the above except replace "Sandwich Traditionalist" with "Radical Sandwich Anarchist" and the statement makes just as much sense, which is my point.

>I have looked up the definition of a sandwich and a pop tart qualifies.
shouldn't you post the definition then?

>Repeat the above except replace "Sandwich Traditionalist" with "Radical Sandwich Anarchist" and the statement makes just as much sense, which is my point.
Okay I get what you're saying now, you're saying that there isn't any socially accepted definition of the word sandwich. I think that's bogus, society at large clearly has some idea of what a sandwich is and even if they weren't able to codify it perfectly in words, they would still have an idea of what a sandwich is. That means that no, even definitions are defined subjectively, the vast majority of subjective opinion does not agree to the idea of a poptart being a sandwich, and so while you can still believe it is a sandwich (and you aren't wrong), the rest of the people who do not believe poptarts are sandwiches will not agree with you and will be very confused when you ask for sandwiches with the intentions of getting poptarts.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sandwich

Definition of sandwich

1
a : two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between
b : one slice of bread covered with food

2
: something resembling a sandwich; especially : composite structural material consisting of layers often of high-strength facings bonded to a low strength central core

you cannot just go around saying anything is societies definition of a sandwich, because that is something that can actually be proved. So no, by societies standards, poptarts are obviously not sandwiches (I doubt you even believe that), by societies standards (I assume) sandwich traditionalist is the only real sandwich, but I could be wrong. Maybe my original idea was right and society largely believes that you only need the structure of a sandwich for it to be a sandwich.

But it's not entirely about what society believes, but also it's scientific definitions. Society can call a dog a doggie, but it's scientific name is (apparently) Canis familiaris. there's also things like etymology and previous definitions of the words that can be considered.


I'm now looking at your recent post, and it's true by that definition a poptart would be a sandwich. But thing is, I can actually disagree anyways, mainly because I have reason to. Merriam webster has not provided any logic in it's definition, and has used rather wide terms, but more importantly it defined it in such a way that I believe most people would actually disagree with their definition. Dictionaries are mostly supposed to represent the way people use words and not create new definitions to words no one was using.

Now I don't mean to contradict what I said before about scientific definitions, nor do I want to imply that dictionaries should fickly change their definitions at a moments notice to the whims of the English language. I'm just saying they could very well be wrong here.

(oh and of course I wouldn't expect merrium webster to provide logic as to why it defined sandwich as such)

really logic is what I wanted to be provided with. What is the standardized method of defining things, and with it how is a sandwich defined? Are definitions based of of what society thinks, or is it based off of something else?

In fact thinking about it, really the person that would have one of the best perspectives on this would be the people who actually go out and write dictionaries.

There must be an authority, which society recognizes, as a means to define words. Miriam'Webster is generally accepted. By refusing this definition, it is you who is going against the generall censens of society by strictly defining a sandwich the way of a Sandwich Traditionalist.
If you say "The dictionary is wrong" how many issues could you imagine can arise from that?
>I didn't rape her officer
>We'll I don't accept the dictionary definition of rape.

well that's actually the problem with subjectivity. I frequently use that against atheists to let them know that their subjective moralist world view doesn't allow for real morality, and they have no defense because it's true. subjectivism practically means "it's an illusion that doesn't really exist".

If God exists and has a true definition to words, then we could base on God's authority that those words are the true definition, but sadly the bible doesn't really define what a sandwich is, so I couldn't really know.

"In the United States, a court in Boston, Massachusetts ruled in 2006 that a sandwich includes at least two slices of bread."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich
web.archive.org/web/20090215032951/http://boston.com:80/business/articles/2006/11/10/arguments_spread_thick/

:^)

,

>A subWAY SANDWICH is not a sandwich

I realize after much thought that it is indeed a sandwich, but it might differ from the spirit of what it quintessentially means to be a sandwich due to it's long length.

>really logic is what I wanted to be provided with. What is the standardized method of defining things, and with it how is a sandwich defined? Are definitions based of of what society thinks, or is it based off of something else?
Definitions definitely change over time. Terrific used to be synonymous with Horrific and it's easy to see why, terror vs horror. The word switched around the '20's, or '30's, if memory serves, but I don't know why.
You say you want a logical definition of a sandwich and, ultimately, so do I. As far as I'm aware, I was the first person to post that chart in the OP, a few months back, and (one of) the reason I did it is to foster debate in the hopes of either, having Veeky Forums develop a logically consistent definition of 'Sandwich', or to illustrate that definitions are ultimately meaningless and we actually cannot communicate with each other, because the Socratic Method requires words to be defined prior to discussion being possible.
I happen to believe that the majority of political debate happens because the two parties involved in the debate define words differently and, therefore, are unable to see eye-to-eye on many issues, though I'm not interested in turning this political, so I will refrain from giving examples.

>really logic is what I wanted to be provided with. What is the standardized method of defining things, and with it how is a sandwich defined? Are definitions based of of what society thinks, or is it based off of something else?
...cont.
So you say that a sandwich is what it is because society says so and, therefor, a poptart is not a sandwich, while I'm saying that society accepts dictionary definitions, which implies that a poptart is a sandwich.
Personally, I would like to see a definition of sandwich which precludes poptarts, wraps, and hotdogs but such a definition does not exist.
The challenge then is, write a definition that is logically consistent and can generally be agreed upon, which disallows things like calzones, pizza, lasagna, tacos, burritos, ect...

Wouldn't that make a hot dog a sausage sub?

really thinking about it, a hotdog is a sandwich that's almost cut all the way through to make 2 pieces, but isn't, and is turned on it's side as well as being slightly longer so that it can better hold a sausage in it, so in a sense it's a sandwich. But anyone could take one look at it and see that this clearly violates the spirit of what it means to be a sandwich, and isn't a proper sandwich at all.

Not only that but we already have a good definition that can be used instead anyways, and that's "hotdog" or "hotdog bun"

We have a good definition of BLT bit I don't think that disqualifies it as a sandwich.

Is a toast sandwich a sanwich?

The clue's in the name, retard.

if it is put between 2 pieces of bread it is a sandwich. a toast sandwich is still a sandwich. hamburgers are not sandwiches, they use buns and are completely different to sandwiches, as with a sandwich you would not have fries on the side. burgers are a counterpart to sandwiches. retards often make the mistake of thinking burgers are sandwiches and it pisses me off

Hot dog?
biscuits or pie?
pizza?
salad?
burger?
Indian cake?

That's an impressive list of sandwiches.

I don't think any of them are actually sandwiches

I'm sorry you failed to read the definition. They are all sandwiches.

sandwich

- (noun) A popular lunch concoction consisting of two or more pieces of bread with various meats,cheesesor condiments in between them. Derived from Earl of Sandwich ofEnglandwho is said to have first popularized the meal in the 18th century.

structural neutral ingredient purist master race

Yes, but that is clearly a BLIMPIE sandwich

>merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sandwich
>Definition of sandwich
>1
>a : two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between
>b : one slice of bread covered with food
>2
>: something resembling a sandwich; especially : composite structural material consisting of layers often of high-strength facings bonded to a low strength central core

The sandwich is generally attributed to the Earl of Sandwich who wanted a convenient way to eat his meal while still keeping his mitts clean so he could continue gambling. I say a sandwich is anything you can eat that's covered by another something you can eat that doesn't get your hands dirty, in the spirit of the Earl. Regardless of what the "bread" is, or if it's wrapped, rolled, or otherwise supported.