Makes more sense than the time Indiana tried to define pi as 3.2. The only reason it didn’t was because a professor from Purdue was in Indianapolis on unrelated business and convinced Indiana’s senate to table the bill.

Of course, we know today that such a thing couldn’t happen since Indiana’s legislature would laugh at the woke lib and pass it just to trigger him.

That is why in California, bees are fish

But why do they even have laws about sandwiches in the first place?

Damn straight, if you ordered a sandwich in a restaurant and they brought you a burrito or taco… you’d be really confused and a bit annoyed that you didn’t get what you asked for.

I say there are four categories:

• “standalones”: anything that is only described as itself. Separation just results in smaller versions of itself.
• sandwiches: organized or layered arrangements of foods. Can typically be separated into it’s composing parts.
• salads: tossed or jumbled arrangements of foods. Could be separated into its parts, albeit cumbersome.
• sauces: perfectly combined or blended arrangements of foods. Can no longer be separated into its composing parts, but differs from a standalone because it was still composed of other foods, and can still be identified or described as all of the parts.

That’s bad taxonomy, because then what’s a taco salad? It’s an untossed taco salad salad. But we still don’t know what taco means. So it’s becomes an untossed untossed taco salad salad salad. Which becomes an untossed untossed untossed taco salad salad salad salad. We never learn what a taco actually is.

This falls into a common trap. Because we cannot succinctly define a salad in one sentence we decide that it cannot be defined at all. This argument effectively reducto ad absurdums itself by coming to the conclusion that all foods are salad.

If we start from a position where we discount nothing from being a salad, and we have only salads (and soup, seemingly) to base our analysis on, how can we ever identify the boundaries of salad? The whole argument is based on the flawed premise that anything could be a salad.

I realise that I am thinking too hard about this.

Then what’s a wedge salad? “Ingredients “?

Both can be true.

By that logic, cupcakes can be multiple things depending on how you eat them.

If the cupcake is whole and frosted on top like how they’re normally served, you have toast. But if you rip off the bottom and turn it upside down and place it on the top, it is a sandwich. If you inject the frosting into the middle with a piping bag like an unemployed donut maker, it becomes a calzone.

What I’m saying is cupcakes are valid options for all meals of the day.

I would have argued with you before today, because a hot dog is clearly a taco. But I guess if tacos are sandwiches, then by the transitive property, it is also a sandwich.

Or common sense.

First, you need to find a place where soup restaurants have some special privileges compared to normal businesses. Then, just start a soup restaurant there and serve cereal and milk instead.

If you can’t find such a place, then maybe you can ask your local politicians to pass a bill like that. Would be nice if soup restaurants had to pay only half the amount of taxes compared to everyone else. Would be good for the owners, and fun for everyone else to see where the resulting legal battles go. Suddenly, you would find lots of companies selling just about anything and everything as soup and claiming they don’t have to pay the usual taxes.

Turns out the rest of the world doesn’t stop just because some fucked up shit is happening.

I am sure this judge has all the say in those situations.

I mean, this is more about a local business being locked out from developing a new location in an area because that are has specific rules about what can be opened in that area (because Political Money) because for some reason only ships that sell sandwiches are allowed to open up in that region.

We think it’s because Panera or another major shop being buddy buddy with legislators

Also I jerked off this morning. Not nearly so important as war, but definitely nicer.

You are surprised? We argued over tomatoes being a fruit or vegetable and if they are a vegetable, then ketchup must count as a serving of vegetable. So the argument over tacos and burritos being a sandwich only surprises me in that fact it took so long to argue about it in court.

• 4 sides is a taquito
• 5 sides is a wrap
• 6 sides is a burrito

So… a hot dog is a taco?

Burritos have an inside and an outside, therefore sandwich.

I’m sending the cops over to your house right now.

Is a sub/hoagie a sandwich? Bread is usually connected.

Oh God, why did I get involved

But tacos traditionally are more like wraps by your definition, with the exception being hard/crunchy tacos which are on what i would technically call a chip, this making crunchy tacos just portable nachos

Additionally walking tacos are supported by a chip bag, making them neither a taco nor nachos.

Hamburgers are a specific style of sandwiches whose name is derived from Hamburg, Germany.

Chicken sandwiches are not hamburgers.

from a topological perspective, wraps and tacos are two different beasts.

in a wrap, the bread completely surrounds (and encloses) the other ingredients, so theres a 2-dimensional hole involved (which basically means the inside is hollow).

in a taco, no such wholes are present.

you can also distinguish sandwiches from tacos and wraps (since sandwiches involve two pieces of bread, like you said). but unfortunately, you can’t topologically distinguish a burger from a sandwich

Hmm, what of rolls? Ciabatta, Kaiser rolls? Even croissants? By this definition it seems they’d be burgers, since rolls are cut in half. But then my roast beef sandwich is a lying, cold, sad burger

That Judge’s apparently.