I know, and I'm telling you that it's within your reach. Don't believe in the you that believes in those mashed potatoes. Believe in the me that has made those mashed potatoes.
Loaded mashed potatos out of mugs... Mmmmmm.
Individual shepard's pie out of a mug...
They're ceramic mugs...I could probably bake in them.
Cus solipsism isn't :P Descartes has the advantage of being a player and as some would call him "the Father of modern philosophy". He's a like a mind pimp, or something.
Cus solipsism isn't :P Descartes has the advantage of being a player and as some would call him "the Father of modern philosophy". He's a like a mind pimp, or something.
I'm not saying solipsism isn't; I hate solipsism and do not consider it a valid way to live my life. That's a different conversation, though. I'm saying that I'm not worried about Descartes coming for me, because his most noteworthy philosophical contribution is inherently unsound.
The Cogito is fundamentally flawed.
Much in the same way that eating off of non-bread dinnerware is fundamentally flawed.
I much prefer more specialized dishes for the item being consumed and traditional table settings (finger bowls FTW). If a single person's dinner setting has less than fourteen components then it would be an informal meal. If there are less than nine components at an informal setting, then it is simply too barbaric to be borne.
I just pictured a meal setting composed of fourteen random items. Spaghetti on picture frame and eaten with a curling iron. Soup in gramophone and ladled with shoehorn and so on.
Bowls are not better than plates >:-) Why do you think even the lowliest meal, the TV dinner, comes plated? I mean I've mixed hungry man meatloaf dinner in a bowl and eaten it with a spoon as often as the next person, but I had no illusions about how awful it was to do that.
Bowls are not better than plates >:-) Why do you think even the lowliest meal, the TV dinner, comes plated? I mean I've mixed hungry man meatloaf dinner in a bowl and eaten it with a spoon as often as the next person, but I had no illusions about how awful it was to do that.
That is not a real plate. It has each food in a separate depression. And what is a depression like? A bowl. A tv dinner is in a segmented bow basically.
That is not a real plate. It has each food in a separate depression. And what is a depression like? A bowl. A tv dinner is in a segmented bow basically.
Well at what point does a depression delineate a bowl rather than a plate? Most plates have a depression.
That is not a real plate. It has each food in a separate depression. And what is a depression like? A bowl. A tv dinner is in a segmented bow basically.
Well at what point does a depression delineate a bowl rather than a plate? Most plates have a depression.
The fact that they each go down atleast an inch or two.
I submit that all bowls are actually plates, and that not all plates are bowls, thus proving once and for all that plates are better, more versatile, etc, plates über alles. Plate supremacy.
I ate a rather large waffle today and I must concede that it was better on a plate than it could have been in a bowl. I maintain however that for all foods, save large monolithic ones (steaks, giant waffles, etc...), bowls are superior.
I submit that all bowls are actually plates, and that not all plates are bowls, thus proving once and for all that plates are better, more versatile, etc, plates über alles. Plate supremacy.
If all bowls are plates, then what exactly are plates superior to? Obviously eating off a bowl or plate is superior to eating off nothing. I am arguing that within the subset of all dishes whose sides go up to some degree (plates and bowls), those with a greater depression (bowls) are nearly always superior.
This entire thread is weird.
It is posted in flamewars, what else could you expect?
I ate a rather large waffle today and I must concede that it was better on a plate than it could have been in a bowl. I maintain however that for all foods, save large monolithic ones (steaks, giant waffles, etc...), bowls are superior.
My god. Take the concept of a bread bowl. Apply it to Belgian waffles. Belgian waffle bowl.
Wikipedia is shockingly non-specific on the exact definition of a bowl. From my reading of the entry for "plate," I'm forced to agree that a bowl is a subset of plates, thus making the plate technically superior.
Trenchers ftw!
My god. Take the concept of a bread bowl. Apply it to Belgian waffles. Belgian waffle bowl.
I ate a rather large waffle today and I must concede that it was better on a plate than it could have been in a bowl. I maintain however that for all foods, save large monolithic ones (steaks, giant waffles, etc...), bowls are superior.
My god. Take the concept of a bread bowl. Apply it to Belgian waffles. Belgian waffle bowl.
I imagine keeping the batter in the correct position and density would make designing a wafflebowl iron difficult, but IT MUST BE TRIED.
Wikipedia is shockingly non-specific on the exact definition of a bowl. From my reading of the entry for "plate," I'm forced to agree that a bowl is a subset of plates, thus making the plate technically superior.
Trenchers ftw!
My god. Take the concept of a bread bowl. Apply it to Belgian waffles. Belgian waffle bowl.
Comments
No, I don't believe in your silly unprovable notions like "food" and "water" and "air."
I just pictured a meal setting composed of fourteen random items. Spaghetti on picture frame and eaten with a curling iron. Soup in gramophone and ladled with shoehorn and so on.
All hail the glorious plate master race!
Trenchers ftw! There has to be a way to do this.