|
One of my favorite restaurants here (Nopa) has a burger and fries on the menu for $24. It's really good and even the ketchup is house made. But it's the kind of thing you eat like twice a year.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:One of my favorite restaurants here (Nopa) has a burger and fries on the menu for $24. It's really good and even the ketchup is house made. But it's the kind of thing you eat like twice a year. Oh yeah! The $20 burger place also made a big deal about their home made ketchup with random veggies blended up in it. It was OK. I’ve got a theory that burger places that overly emphasize their home made ketchup by and large aren’t worth checking out. So far it seems to be holding true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
That's because ketchup, housemade or squeezed out of a packet, doesn't belong on burgers. Or any food, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:That's because ketchup, housemade or squeezed out of a packet, doesn't belong on burgers. Or any food, for that matter. I feel like we can't trust your opinion when it comes to food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
I dip French fries in ketchup
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:I dip French fries in ketchup 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:I dip French fries in ketchup Mayo ketchup and hot sauce
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 03:16
|
|
|
im currently eating microwaved tater tots with ketchup on them
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
The cylinders or the rounds. Cause the cylinders are bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:im currently eating microwaved tater tots with ketchup on them That sounds delicious and I wish I had some
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
Ketchup is the second best sauce after the burger sauce that a local ramen burger food stall has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 08:45
|
|
|
Wtf is burger sauce and why does ramen burger exist. Why can't Britain just be normal for five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 08:55
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wtf is burger sauce and why does ramen burger exist. Why can't Britain just be normal for five minutes. Its where the burger bun is made out of ramen noodles. It's really nice! The burger sauce is just that orangey sauce that a load of burger places put on the thing to add more tanginess. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 08:59
|
|
|
I think it’s just ketchup and Mayo
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 09:58
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:It's not skilfully made. It's probably failed in its creators' intentions. It's not objectively bad because that's not a thing. Good and bad are inherently subjective concepts. Hitler's art is objectively bad. The modification to the Shroud of Turin was objectively bad. Just because moral relativism exists and "all things are subjective" doesn't mean that there aren't broad standards people in an industry or with a skillset, agree on. TIG Wielding is art but if you do it wrong you're drat well going to get told so. Coding is art (Donald Knuth has a good argument in the ACM for this), but there's objectively "good code" because there are collective measures that we as an industry have decided are favourable. Just because the concept of what "good" is changes over time (but not by much, actually!!) and is bound to a cultural context doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go read The Design Of Everyday Things or Alexander's Notes On The Synthesis Of Form to learn more about how objective measures can exist inside a (and any) design space. My mum does Botanical Art which is extremely high-skill, requiring both scientific accuracy and high levels of artistry, and not only are there objective measures that she is held to (if you paint something wrong and it gets used in a field reference someone could literally die), but if you tried to tell her or anyone else in her field there's "no such thing as bad art" they'd probably go full ape rabid on attacking you because that position is objectively bad and incoherent. alexandriao has a new favorite as of 10:22 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 10:20
|
|
|
Hitler's paintings are extremely average, you could hang one in a hotel lobby and no one would notice
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 10:21
|
|
|
Yeah but they're also technically a bit squiffy too. Edit: to continue that argument, there's objectively bad violin playing, too. When you get it technically correct you can still be objectively bad because there's no soul to the thing, but there's also the fact that just a rando picking up a violin and playing random sounds is not "good" by any measure no matter how much of the false, bad idea of "innate talent" people think they have
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 10:23
|
|
|
alexandriao posted:Hitler's art is objectively bad. The modification to the Shroud of Turin was objectively bad. Just because moral relativism exists and "all things are subjective" doesn't mean that there aren't broad standards people in an industry or with a skillset, agree on. alexandriao posted:My mum does Botanical Art which is extremely high-skill, requiring both scientific accuracy and high levels of artistry, and not only are there objective measures that she is held to (if you paint something wrong and it gets used in a field reference someone could literally die), but if you tried to tell her or anyone else in her field there's "no such thing as bad art" they'd probably go full ape rabid on attacking you because that position is objectively bad and incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 11:53
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The fact that the standards are things people agreed on is exactly what proves they're subjective. If they were objective, there wouldn't need to be any discussion or agreement because it would be unquestionable. You don't need to get a group of people together to decide whether trees exist because their existence is an objective fact. Anyone who wants to test that can check for themself. You can create objective standards for judging things in that those standards can be applied uniformly by anyone, but those standards are still not an objective measure of actual quality or merit. It's still up to people to decide what is desirable and what isn't and that subjective judgement forms the basis for any such standards. I think you're arguing semantics to prove what you think "objective" means here. By your measure even scientific standards are subjective rather than objective, which I broadly agree with, but you are taking it so far that your endgame here is stating that, "actually the word 'objective' shouldn't exist, because everything is subjective anyway". I think we, and everyone who bothers to read these posts, both understand what I meant by "objective", what "objective" means in a general sense, and why what you are saying (while true) doesn't actually make any sort of difference to my argument that some things can be objectively bad or good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
Like I am arguing that there are contextually and culturally objective metrics, and you are agreeing with me but trying to make it look like you are not. So that's like... good job buddy
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:I think it’s just ketchup and Mayo Probably, all I know is is that it tastes nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:01
|
|
|
alexandriao posted:Like I am arguing that there are contextually and culturally objective metrics, and you are agreeing with me but trying to make it look like you are not. So that's like... good job buddy This IS a semantics argument at its core, but so what? Using terms to mean something opposite to what the other side in the discussion understands them to mean is not going to help get anyones point across. Like, how do you type out the phrase "contextually objective" and not instantly collapse in a heap of contradictions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:13
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:I think it’s just ketchup and Mayo Sometimes extras like spice but yes, american burger places often call it fry sauce or "secret" or "house" or some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
alexandriao posted:you are taking it so far that your endgame here is stating that, "actually the word 'objective' shouldn't exist, because everything is subjective anyway". alexandriao posted:I think we, and everyone who bothers to read these posts, both understand what I meant by "objective", what "objective" means in a general sense, and why what you are saying (while true) doesn't actually make any sort of difference to my argument that some things can be objectively bad or good. alexandriao posted:Like I am arguing that there are contextually and culturally objective metrics, and you are agreeing with me but trying to make it look like you are not. So that's like... good job buddy
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:There is simply no way for value judgements to be anything other than subjective. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Hitler's paintings are extremely average, you could hang one in a hotel lobby and no one would notice 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
alexandriao posted:Hitler's art is objectively bad. The modification to the Shroud of Turin was objectively bad. Just because moral relativism exists and "all things are subjective" doesn't mean that there aren't broad standards people in an industry or with a skillset, agree on. I feel like this is one giant appeal to authority It's bad because these particular people say it's bad go read some guy's book, accept his subjective measures, then you will see it's bad It's also kind of impossible to separate the idea of objectively good and bad art from classism Also, PHUO: I personally don't think anything that is designed for a useful function is art
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Hitler's paintings are weird in that often people don't appear. Only architecture and landscapes. This is how Lovecraft's travelogues were. Purple prose about buildings but no talk of local food or culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Hitler's paintings are weird in that often people don't appear. Only architecture and landscapes. This is how Lovecraft's travelogues were. Purple prose about buildings but no talk of local food or culture. I wonder if that's a thing. Mega racists not including people in their art
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:I feel like this is one giant appeal to authority What does that even mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:What does that even mean? Positing a claim is true because an authority or expert says it is true, avoiding the call for evidence
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
I don’t know guys, Tiggum might be right this time
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
The only objective truth is that something exist, without any reference to time, which might be a part of the subjective experience. Nihilism (as a way to perceive reality, not as a guide to action) remains undefeated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:I don’t know guys, Tiggum might be right this time lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
doverhog posted:The only objective truth is that something exist, without any reference to time, which might be a part of the subjective experience. Nihilism (as a way to perceive reality, not as a guide to action) remains undefeated. ding ding ding hit the nail on the head Tiggum posted:But I gave a specific example of something that is objectively true? As long as we know what is meant by the word "tree" (and all the other words in the sentence), "trees exist" or "there is a tree outside my window" are objective statements of fact. You can't have an opinion about the validity of those statements, only be right or wrong. Trees exist whether you believe in them or not; that's what "objective" means. Your argument here is that: - "objectivity" exists in and of itself - things can either be objective, or subjective - that objective metrics don't exist relative to something, but are in fact immaterial of reference point is both utterly absurd, and has so many counter-examples I'm not even going to bother to try and list them all, because by making these arguments you should realise this is philosophy and sociology 101 and go read arguments by much better versed people than either of us on this subject. Like, holy poo poo I can't even believe you're making this argument lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:I feel like this is one giant appeal to authority I mean, no, that's missing the point. Those are all examples of places where there are objective (industry standard) yardsticks to determine goodness or badness. That those measures exist in reference to something, within a particular context, isn't something that can (or should) be denied, as Tiggum is trying to do. Manager Hoyden posted:It's also kind of impossible to separate the idea of objectively good and bad art from classism Yes, but also, no. In that with respect to art, it's highly variable. You're broadly right but there are some specific fields of art where those metrics were developed because they are useful, not because they cut out the lower classes from the circle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:But I gave a specific example of something that is objectively true? As long as we know what is meant by the word "tree" (and all the other words in the sentence), "trees exist" or "there is a tree outside my window" are objective statements of fact. You can't have an opinion about the validity of those statements, only be right or wrong. Trees exist whether you believe in them or not; that's what "objective" means. Actually I missed this and missed this part of your argument, so let me amend what I said earlier. Here you are defining a specific context, reference frame, and then stating that within those contexts and reference frames, objectivity exists. Take your tree example. If we are both standing in a garden, the word "tree" means something different than if I am in a computer science lab, and that terms are depending on what I'm pointing at, and what both people understand. This is fine and we both agree. We both agree here that if the context is a garden, and I am pointing at the grass, then I would be both objectively wrong and probably suffering a stroke or something (probably from your posts tbh), and that if the context is different, then what a tree is changes, and the metric must too (otherwise you wouldn't have had to have specified a common reference point?) This means that, like me, you admit that, without that common reference frame, or context, objectivity cannot exist. Therefore my assertion that good and bad art is objective within a specific reference frame and context, shouldn't at all be surprising to you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
Buffalo sauce is one of the worst sauces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
And towns!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 03:01
|
|
