This is not cooking. This is playing with food. "Artists"...
Post well made dinners that aren't made for cats.
it's cooked, isn't it?
>gourmet cuisine
>>7594449
>20 course meal of bite-size food
>20 or more dishes to clean per person
>Fine dining fags will defend the massive waste of water to clean up after each service
>>7594594
The electricity you're using now is also wasteful. Most luxuries are.
>>7594598
>everyone uses utilities, so it's okay if some people waste way more than others!
Ok
>>7594601
It's okay if they're paying for it, which they are.
>>7594594
>luxury items are wasteful
ALERT THE INTERNET!
>>7594603
Found the Trump supporter
>>7594594
DUDE WATER LMAO
>>7594605
I don't get it. Because they pay for things?
>>7594594
Fine dining is a luxury, and traditionally luxury meals were served over many courses. If you're paying for cooks, servers and people to clean up after you have no reason to be restrained when it comes to the number of dishes making up the meal. And of course the more courses the small the portion size of each course.
While it can be seen as wasteful it also employs people.
Reminder that 20% service charge is not a tip.
You still need to tip your server, goy.
fuck i hate this meme so fucking much it makes me so fucking angry.
if you are hungry and want to satisfy your hunger go to a fast food joint and eat till you are full.
if you want to experience something new, if you want to see what can be done with food, what is possible, eat at a fine dining place
only a literal mong would compare these two tings.
>>7594669
I don't just enjoy the art of cooking and the taste of food, I enjoy eating, too. I can afford to eat at these places, but I'd rather go to a decent steakhouse and stuff my face.
>>7594668
>1 Coke
>5$
>1 Gingerale
>5$
those better be the best Coke and Gingerale in the fucking country
>>7594669
>if you want to experience something new, if you want to see what can be done with food, what is possible
except that more often than not it's not about that anymore because fine dining places have to force innovation to keep themselves "trendy"
they'll churn out whatever shit they can come up with, no matter how ridiculous it actually is
>>7594679
Good for fucking you. You're a landwhale if you can't fill up at a fine dining establishment.
Those of us who are passionate about food enjoy seeing and tasting novel ingredients, presentations, and pairings.
If I just wanted a steak of course I wouldn't fucking eat prix fixe.
>>7594668
No you don't. It says "optional" right there.
>>7594668
>goy
/pol/ is so edgy
>>7594684
then don't go to those ones, fuck. might as well tell us we shouldn't have dogs because pitbulls are cunts
>>7594692
I do too, but the fundamental point of food is to fucking nourish. It's so good, so naturally I want more than a few bites. You are a pretentious twat or retarded if you think novel ingredients and pairings preclude the ability to cook up a full meal.
>>7594711
>I do too, but the fundamental point of food is to fucking nourish.
food does not have a point, anon. it's just matter.
>You are a pretentious twat or retarded if you think novel ingredients and pairings preclude the ability to cook up a full meal.
it sounds like you're the one that thinks that. i don't think i have ever left a restaurant hungry. what is a 'full meal' to you? take a fine dining fixed menu and put everything on one plate and you will probably shut up.
>>7594720
>food does not have a point
Yes it does, it's to provide you with energy
>>7594730
no. it provides you with energy, but that is not why it exists. it can exist for all manner of reasons.
>>7594711
>the fundamental point of food is to fucking nourish
That's the fundamental point of famine foods. Much of human society is structured around the ability to eat for please rather than pure function, not only in our western societies, but in every people on earth.
If fine dining is unappealing to you because it's not filling enough for the money, this says to me that it is too expensive for you, you are overweight, or you have never actually experienced fine dining (and how much food it really is, despite being presented as small plates). Of course some combination of the three is always possible as well.
If I go to the kind of restaurant you seem to be referencing, I'll pay 5-25% as much as I would for a good prix fixe offering, and I'll probably split my entree or take part of it home. Nobody is denying that it's more economical to eat this way. To take that a step further, cooking for yourself is also much cheaper, which is how I eat 80% of my meals.
You don't have to hate them just because they don't have a Supersize menu.
>>7594736
This is so pretentious it has to be shitposting.
>>7594799
I never thought I would have a chance to post this again.
>>7594594
You ever heard of a three compartment sink? You just use the same water and then sanitize.
>>7594730
Nonsense. Food is culture, identity, civilization and history. The biological imperative to eat is one thing, but the human creation of cuisine is far more than that. When you consider the countless resources (including man hours) that go into every meal you eat you can't possibly claim food is anything less than an expression of human endeavor.
So presenting the poorfag false dichotomy that fancy food = not feeling full and getting muh money's worth is just ignorant. If you're such a landwhale that you're not satisfied until halfway through your third plate at Golden Corral any place with reasonable portion sizes is going to be a let down. Just remember eating like that is how you got fat in the first place. Plenty of rich folks don't want to get fat, because it makes them look poor. They want to enjoy good food without being gluttons about it. Restaurants that cater to them take this into account, stressing quality over quantity. Poorfags want to eat until they can't eat anymore, like fucking goldfish, and restaurants that cater to them take this into account, stressing quantity over quality.
Really, all you have to do is look at the diners at a restaurant. If you're a fatfuck go eat where the fatfucks eat. If the restaurant is full of skinny people the portion size may not sate your fatfuck appetite. Stay away. Your presence would only ruin the aesthetic of the place anyways.
>>7594730
tweezer food is not for nourishment, bruh. food like this is for entertainment. this is spectacle, not substance. how do you not ''''''''''get'''''''''' that?
>>7594836
wash, rinse and sanitizing compartments need to be drained, cleaned and changed over based on usage and specifically the sanitizing compartment needs to be changed as per the spec. on your chemical (normally every 2 hours).
industrial automatic dishwashers operate on the same principal (circulating the same water for warewashing) and also must be drained, cleaned and refilled every two hours.
do you not have any industry experience? i figured everyone knew how to work the steward's station.
>>7594850
>food like this is for entertainment. this is spectacle
Which is a big part of dining out, as opposed to eating porridge at home. Participating in culture and being entertained is part of it. At a certain level one expects the aesthetics of the food to match the flavor of it. If you're not on that level, fine. You don't have to eat that. But saying aesthetics are valueless is just silly, and you know it.
>>7594868
>But saying aesthetics are valueless is just silly, and you know it.
I never said that, friend. Never even implied it. Why would you admonish me for reinforcing your argument against whichever anon we were both replying to?
>>7594594
A place doing a 20 course meal isn't going to have that many seat, and will have only a couple seatings.
Compared to a large family restaurant or something with a constant turnover, the fine dining place probably uses less dishes.
>>7594872
Sorry to jump down your throat. The term "tweezer food" set me off. I thought you were undermining the value of aesthetics and flourishes common in places with tasting menus by using that term. My bad.
I'll admit some of this stuff can look a little silly, but when the price of a meal gets in the neighborhood of $200 you're paying for more than just luxury ingredients. You're paying for the aesthetics of it.
>>7594699
Stop goysplaining that to me. Fucking kafir
>>7594449
dads cousin is a judge who is married to another judge so they are loaded.
He once attended a convention and they spent a shit ton of money duting the week long stay at the hotel. Before leaving he tiped a couple of bucks and the busboy came back telling him he forgot something and threw a bunch of coins at him
>>7594668
Fuck off, nippon jew.
>$400 per plate
>still needs a 20% service charge to cover costs
Go back to business school and learn how to cover costs with sales
>>7594449
You like McDonald's, dont you, anon?
>>7594824
it's much more pretentious to think you've arrived at the 'point' of food by bullshit post hoc reasoning.
A quote from marco pierre white while he was running his three star london restaurant was that on sunday's him and his mates would go down to chinatown and eat shitty takeout food.
You don't eat a 8 course fine dining tasting menu to have a full belly at the end of it. You've got no class if you scoff at luxuries.
>>7594952
I get the term 'tweezer food' from my friend who was formerly first cook at Sixteen in Chicago, who described their tasting menu as 'fucking tweezer food, augh, God. I hate it. Takes forever.'
>>7595086
Totally describes tasting menu plating. But putting that kind of painstaking work in is part of the point. That's what distinguishes high end luxury - it's the difference between prêt-à -porter and haute couture, the difference between an original painting and a print. Beyond scarcity part of what defines luxury is that it requires skilled hands to produce.
>>7594799
Still, foods there to extract nutrients from. Liking said food depends on the nutritional value and rarity of nutrients, for a part at least (fat & sugar = rare = liked). Whle these restaurants explore what combinations are tasty, and what looks good, they are still there to go get some nutrients.
Only fat fucks eat just for just the flavour.
You don't go to a fancy restaurant with a filled restaurant, you go both to get nutrients and experience flavour. These two are apparently worth the extra money to you.
>>7595145
>Still, foods there to extract nutrients from.
no, they're just there.
>Liking said food depends on the nutritional value and rarity of nutrients, for a part at least (fat & sugar = rare = liked).
we like calorie dense foods but we also like things that are toxic. you're reading intention and design into things that aren't there, mr aquinas.
>>7595156
>no, they're just there.
Foods always prepared, be it a sauce (thiose aren't found on the sidewalk), even raw things like raw mushrooms or tuna must still be hunted/plucked and put on a plate.
Food is always made by someone, with the intention of it being consumed.
Most consumption has the goal of sustaining life
>we also like things that are toxic
What delicious toxins are out there then?
Might be nice to try when I inevitably commit suicide
Also, fat and sugar being popular has an evolutionary goal; people who ate lots of these were most likely better at surviving due to larger fat reserves (since they were scarce obesity wasn't really a danger)
Most toxins taste godawful since the brain is hard-wired to not like stuff that poses a threat to you. Most toxins are quite bitter, which is an unpopular taste.
>>7595145
I think you're overthinking it. Hyper aware health nuts might think eat to "experience nutrients", but I think for most people going out to eat at a restaurant operates on a variety of levels: sating hunger, causing pleasure, entertainment, class affirmation, socializing, aesthetics, novelty and even the kind of empowerment that comes from being able to afford to walk into a place and have other people cook and serve you food. And restaurants are designed to cater to those things.
>>7595185
>Food is always made by someone, with the intention of it being consumed.
no it isn't.
>Also, fat and sugar being popular has an evolutionary goal
no, it has an evolutionary outcome. we are not designed. the world is not a watch. use your head.
>What delicious toxins are out there then?
many of the plants we consume have defensive mechanisms which ordinarily deter animals from consuming them. many bitterants. there isn't a clear evolutionary reason why we like caramelised/maillardised foods. alcohol. a lot could be said on this subject really
>>7595200
Give me an example of food you/anyone else eat that hasn't in some way been changed from where it grows/resides, to when you eat it.
Who makes food without wanting someone to eat it?
The popularity of those nutrients has an evolutionary goal; better survival. People who like sugar/fat will try to consume more of it, giving them more calories, which increases the chanches of them not dying after a while of not eating.
While it's poison in the technical meaning of the term, I meant poisonous to humans.
Caramelisation of onions causes complex sugars we can't taste to break down into sugars we can taste,causing them to taste sweeter. This can thus be explained with the 'we like sugar/fat'
I don't know what maillardised food is, can't find anything about it
We like alcoholo because it gets you drunk, pretty simple.
>>7595026
If they can get morons to pay them for it, why not
>>7595270
>Give me an example of food you/anyone else eat that hasn't in some way been changed from where it grows/resides, to when you eat it.
Oysters. Fruits. Many veggies. Nuts and seeds. Honey.
though one might argue that fruits are made by plants with the express purpose of being consumed so their seeds get spread.
>Who makes food without wanting someone to eat it?
Nature
>>7594653
I think what that anon is refering to is the fact that you don't seem to realise that even if you pay for something then that resource is gone. Your money won't magically make shit appear, you have wasted limited resources.
>>7595282
Those are all plucked/collected/harvested/etc.
Oysters are chilled and sometimes served with lemon, nuts need to be peeled.
Nature is not a person. Nature does not make food. A tree can can grow an apple, which happens in nature, but making something requires intelligent intent. A tree, or 'nature' as you call this personification of the collection of all natural life, is not intelligent
>>7595318
>is not intelligent
I never said it was. But I can simply walk up to an apple tree, grab an apple, and eat it. That's food that hasn't been changed from where it grows before I eat it.
>>7595323
BUT YOU FUCKING PLUCK THE APPLE AND REMOVE THE STEM. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THAT ALL FOOD REQUIRE PREPERATION.
>>7594867
You figured wrong.
>>7595323
Also, this argument was about wether or not food is there for it's nutrients or not. You thought it was 'just there'
Food is there because it contains nutrients which are somehow benificial to the thing that grows it.
>>7594826
That's retarded. By what logic are you relating this food to shit?
>>7594952
>when the price of a meal gets in the neighborhood of $200
Unless it involves ingredients that are either; A, legally dubious, or B, borderline rare/endangered; you are only paying for one of two things, either the Name of the establishment or the pretentious dickwaffle that thinks they can cook because the have 'stars' tied to their name.
>>7595289
Yeah, this is simply untrue. If there's anything that history has shown, it's that demand will eventually find a way to produce whatever it is that people want. We will never run out of energy, food, or water.
>>7595455
People are so fucking obstinate about their opposition to fine dining, it's like tipping except it doesn't affect you at all because you've never even experienced it.
>>7595470
>We will never run out of energy, food, or water.
This is straight up false. Increasing production does not change the fact that natural resources are instrinsically limited, otherwise you would be negating the very scarcity of resources and thus supply-demand would be irrelevant
>>7595455
Of course you're paying for the reputation of the restaurant and the chef there. Michelin stars don't just appear out of nowhere. They are earned through years of hard work and skill. People dropping that kind of money on dinner do so with the expectation that they will be eating one of the best meals in the world that night, no question.
That's not the kind of thing you can fake.
>>7595496
>natural resources are instrinsically limited
But they aren't really. The price just keeps going up as the more accessible resources run out. Or, in other words, once all the low-hanging fruit gets picked it's time to grab the ladder and get the fruit higher on the tree. And there's always a higher tree.
>>7595455
>the pretentious dickwaffle that thinks they can cook because the have 'stars' tied to their name.
I cant even.....
>>7595517
He probably thinks Gordon Ramsay has stars because people like to go to a celebrity chef's restaurants.
>>7595030
Why should i go for a fast food if I can cook a meal that is way tastier, and way bigger.
>>7595512
Not necessarily, just because there has been a higher tree so far you can't just arbitrate that it will continue to be that way. Over a large enough time frame all resources (and I mean ALL resources) are necessarily limited. Even within realistic time frames most resources will always run out eventually. Just because you can always produce more food doesn't mean that resources like farmland are inherently scarce and can not, an eventually will not, be able to keep up with an ever-increasing demand.
>>7595539
>Over a large enough time frame all resources
OK, yes, if we're talking entropic-death-of-the-universe sort of situations, then yes, things are limited.
But they are not limited during our lifetime. Or our children's lifetime. Or a thousand generations to come. Because as those resources become more and more in demand the rising prices will enable new solutions to be had.
>>7594449
quality > quantity
maybe head to a golden corral you fat fuck
>>7595554
There are numerous resources that are possibly limited even within our lifetimes or not far beyond, and even if we do manage to find other solutions it does not change the fact that there's one resource that's gone and is not coming back, a situation that is preferably avoided if at all possible.
And even without talking about eventual limitation of resources there are always practical problems that arise all the time. For example, if you have one cow to feed 10 people and one person pays for the cow and eats all of it the other 9 will starve. Sure the money was paid and you can grow another cow but not in time to feed the other 9 people. This is just an example but there are numerous real life cases where simply because the monetary resources are there it does not mean that the real resources will be produced, even if there is a demand for them, at the time where said resources are needed. So no, just because they paid money for it doesn't mean it's not a "waste" since the resources, even if virtually unlimited over time, are still very much limited at any given time and may take a long while to be replenished.
>>7595529
kek. But there are people who just assume because they don't understand something it's just Emperor's New Clothes. Imagine if the best meal you ever had was at a Ruth's Chris steakhouse, you think wine is a pretentious sham and the very idea of spending that kind of money on a meal is inconceivable to you. The whole concept of fine dining will seem absurd to you, and you might have a difficult time accepting that it has any merit.
Because at the end of the day it is a luxury few can afford, and if you're not one of them it's reassuring to convince yourself you're not missing anything.
>>7595639
People who assume everything they don't understand is a sham are the people I hate the most. But there's still no justifying OP's pic, like please at least have enough on the plate for me to get a couple bite's worth out of it, I doubt you can even smell the dish properly with it being that small. I'd rather have 10 dishes double the size of that than 20 dishes that size.
>>7595652
That's probably a complementary pre-starter or pre-main snack. Or at the very most a starter.
>>7595652
Well that plate will most likely be from a taster menu consisting of 6-12 dishes. Its there to be tasted before moving onto the next. And they do vary in size, even on a taster menu there are often main dishes and supplementary dishes that will vary in size depending on prominence.
>>7595671
>i have to stuff my face with it to feel taste
Nigga, what?
>>7595671
It could be very rich. It could be a palette cleanser before the next course.
Part of the experience is the intrigue, shared in a social setting by your friends, family or colleagues, in wondering just how on earth they made something taste so exceptional.
>>7595652
>the people I hate the most.
Put it in context though: this kind of food would be a serious splurge for many of us. The target audience is really the very wealthy. Some of us here will never set foot in a place with a tasting menu because they simply can't afford the cost of entry.
Poor people mocking the rich for being effete has as long a history as the not quite rich doing their damnedest to look like they're rich. Opinions about fine dining become a lightning rod for this shit. Poor people feel as compelled to mock it as not quite rich people feel the need to show how familiar they are with it. My guess is there's only a handful of people here who eat at Michelin starred restaurants more than once or twice a year, and quite a few who will never eat at one.
>>7595722
I'm poor as fuck myself though. And this is not just the case with fine dining, I see people having the same attitude towards shit like fashion and art all the time, and those are things you theoretically don't need any money to enjoy (well as for the fashion part all you can do is look at it but still).
What is the pic of anyway? Some sort of caramelized peach type thing?
>>7595722
Seems accurate.
I guess I fall into the "not quite rich" category as I've been to a few high end places for friends birthdays and stuff. I see high end dining as more of an experience than just a meal with friends and it certainly is a highlight of my month.
>>7595734
No doubt. The cost of entry to the finer end of culture ain't cheap. People who can't afford it discourage taking an interest in it. And because wealthy people in urban centers are on the lookout for the next big thing fashion plays a role in fine dining, couture and art. Things go in and out of style. If you don't have a fair bit of money and leisure time you're not going to be keeping up with that. It would actually be pretentious of you to do so unless you worked in in one of those industries or that shit was your hobby. This shit makes for a tough hobby if you're poor.
That said I've been rich and poor at different times in my life (career in the arts) and cooking proved to be a great hobby. Because when I didn't have the money to eat out at the places I would have liked to I could still eat well at home.
>>7595336
If I wanted to I could eat it straight off the tree without plucking it
>>7595783
I bet you could ;)
>>7595318
>Oysters are chilled and sometimes served with lemon, nuts need to be peeled.
are they not food before this happens?
>Nature is not a person. Nature does not make food.
well, yes nature does make food. food is anything we *can* extract nutrients from. it doesn't mean its 'fundamental purpose' is to do so. it's just a necessary condition, and this does not mean that to qualify as food it needs to *fill you up* like you are arguing
>>7596263
>fundamental purpose
The very idea implies intent on some grand level. People can have intent. Animals seem to be able to as well. And maybe plants can, too. We don't really know. But Nature, the personification of the natural world is not an actual thing. It's a romantic shorthand we use to refer to the part of the world not effected by our intent. It does not have its own intent.
The purpose of food is what we decide it is. We have to eat, or we die, so we know it's a necessity. But we've managed to turn this necessity into culture in the form of cuisines both modern and traditional. And like any other cultural artifacts these cuisines reflect history, location, aesthetics, beliefs and knowledge passed from one generation to another. That's where the intent in food comes from.
>>7596320
not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but yes i agree with you.
>>7596346
I think I am agreeing with you. An oyster is food because our ancestors decided it was, and we learned from them. A puppy is not because our ancestors decided that. Food is what we decide it to be, as long as the decisions we make about it are capable of sustaining us.
>>7595503
Just because it tastes good does not make it a good meal. A good meal tastes good and leaves you satisfied. OP's pic is not a "good meal."
>>7596374
>OP's pic is not a "good meal."
Of course not. It's obviously one course in a much more elaborate meat. No way of judging that meal without knowing what the other courses are like. We can probably assume it's an expensive meal, so you'd hope it would be very good.
>>7594449
>food and cooking board
>daily posts dissing fine dining
this is the worst board.
>>7596334
Regardless, I think we can all agree that washing dishes does not "waste" water. The water is only a solvent. It's not altered or destroyed in any way. It goes down the drain, gets filtered, rereleased into the environment and will end up back in your tap. Eventually.
>dinosaur pee
>>7596413
Truly.
Could you imagine if /k/ was full of threats going into the minutia of Jimenez Arms and Hi-Points, but quickly shouting down anyone who wanted to talk about AR-15s or custom precision distance rifles?
Or if /o/ would only talk about early 90s Ford Festivas and Amigos, but refused to even acknowledge a Ferrari Testarrosa or Dodge Viper
>MUH TINY PLATES
>MUH FILLING
Anyone who spouts this meme has not been to a fine dining restaurant. You dont fucking leave hungry. There are two reasons:
5-10 very small plates of food, by volume, is just as much if not more than whatever canned corn and ramen noodle monstrosity you would find filling at hoome
The fact that you get a plate of just a few bites, that you savor and experience fully, and you have a few minutes between each of these plates, means that your stomach can catch up with you and realize ¨hey, I'm getting pretty full now" rather than if you shovel your fat ugly face with as much food as possible in as short a time as possible, filling your stomach up past the point of being full because you haven't given your stomach time to react to it.
tl;dr: if you complain that fine dining is not filling, you should be sterilized for talking about shit you have no clue about. Or you should be sterilized for being a fatty ass fat as a fat ass fatty
>>7596420
>Regardless, I think we can all agree that washing dishes does not "waste" water.
Depends on where you live. In SoCal, Israel or Ethiopia where water is scarce you can indeed waste water, because your region is not blessed with a bountiful supply of the stuff. If you live in the Eastern US wasting water is just a matter of wasting the resources needed to transport and treat surface water (or the limits of your own well water). Different kind of wasteful.
honestly, /ck/, instead of memespouting about fine dining on the internet, save up 200-300 bucks, watch a couple etiquette videos on youtube so you don't look like an ass, and go experience fine dining. you aren't leaving hungry.
>>7596440
>Or if /o/ would only talk about early 90s Ford Festivas and Amigos, but refused to even acknowledge a Ferrari Testarrosa or Dodge Viper
The difference is that food is so tied to class. Cars are more egalitarian than cuisine. A poorfag yearning for a Ferrari is legit, whereas a poorfag yearning for a modernist tasting menu with wine pairings is the subject of ridicule.
>>7596463
>Anyone who spouts this meme has not been to a fine dining restaurant.
Plenty of older folks I know need half a day at lest to recover from a decent tasting menu with wine pairings. As for fatcucks, I think I said it pretty well here >>7594841
>>7594841
>Poorfags want to eat until they can't eat anymore, like fucking goldfish
lol
why arent they just making food good enough that every bite tastes different and you can sit and enjoy a large portion of its greatness without having to go through the hooplah?
>>7596263
but there is a purpose for things you can eta, and not in a 'god did it' way.
The nutrients food contains are simply used to sustain the life for whatever the thing is that you took it from.
A nut is fatty because it allows optimal survival chances for the seed to grow. Without it, the seed would have little nutrients and would probably never sprout.
A piece of meat is mostly muscle/fat, the function of which is movemoent or dealing with a lower food intake than expected.
So the food we eat has a point, which is to sustain, be it the consumer or the host.
>>7597718
you're reaching really fucking hard.
Here is some chicken I fried in the microwave.
While food artistry has gone off the deep end, I don't think it's fair or rational to discount all food artistry, as it's been a thing for as long as people have painted food in still art portraits.
>>7597729
>food artistry has gone off the deep end
A neighbor of mine is a food stylist - that's his fucking job. Why does such a job exist? Because magazines need beautiful pictures of food, and many delicious dishes don't photograph well. So someone has to make them look pretty, and that's enough work to actually be someone's fucking job.
It's no surprise that at the high end of fine dining the dishes ought to look as good as they taste. We've seen it can be done, but it takes a lot of effort. So that's exactly what you'd expect to see in the high end luxury market.
>ITT: poorfags jelly
>>7597752
?
What are you talking about.
Some people are just making fun of pretentious non-food sold under the guise of food artistry that has nothing to due to with culinary arts.
>>7597762
>pretentious
See that word? That's a word poorfags use to describe shit they can't afford.
>>7594605
Please commit suicide.
>>7595379
You're a fucking idiot.
>>7597840
Found Trump.
>>7597720
>someone makes a factual statement about nutrients in different types of food
Mmhhmm, this is not benificial to my side of the argument, how do I refute his point?
>"U iz reaching 2 hardd m80 :DDDDD"
Nice
>>7598000
the factual statement does not slot into the argument. 'nuts are nutritionally dense' does not prove that food needs to be filling.
there's so much equivocation in this line of argument. food is not 'meant' to be anything. it *is*, by its very nature, 'nourishing' if eaten in sufficient quantities, but there is no moral imperative to provide these quantities. you are having a critical thinking malfunction.
>>7598011
>food is not 'meant' to be anything
Almost. Food is what we decide it to be. If we choose to eat it then it's food. But it's a decision we make, not nature personified. The world around us gives us plenty of options when it comes to things that could be food, but we decide what is and is not.
>>7598030
> Food is what we decide it to be. If we choose to eat it then it's food.
well, if it's generally regarded as edible it's food, but that is more objective than you're making it out to be imo
>>7598060
>edible
Subjective. See morels, brazil nuts, tonka, molds, hákarl, surströmming and all kinds of shit we eat that is mildly (or even highly) toxic but tastes good or is eaten for historical reasons.
>>7598011
It fits into the argument in my opinion, because you said that only famine foods have the prime function of nourishment, which is absolute bullshit.
If I make dinner, then tasty food is nice, but I mainly cook because I don't want to go hungry for an extended period of time.
I know plenty people who'll cook a simple, not very tastefull dinner because they just want to eat something, but I know nobody who'll willfully cook a dinner that tastes good, but leaves them hungry.
That disproves the point that only famine foods serve to primarily nourish, since most common foods like pasta, potatoes or meats are not famine foods, yet serve mostly to their cookers as nourishment.
Do you beg to differ?
>>7598180
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I do beg to differ.
When I cook a meal the main goal in my mind is that it tastes good. I very very rarely eat something purely out of hunger with no regard to its taste.
I have often cooked meals that left me hungry because I was dieting and counting calories. I made myself the tastiest meals I could within a caloric limit. Sometimes that meant the portion sizes were small. But I'd rather eat something that tasted good rather than "filling up" on something that did not.
Clearly this sort of thing varies from person to person.
>>7598180
>I know nobody who'll willfully cook a dinner that tastes good, but leaves them hungry.
No one does this. When you see meals composed of little bites of tasty things there are generally many, many courses.
>>7594841
>Poorfags want to eat until they can't eat anymore, like fucking goldfish, and restaurants that cater to them take this into account, stressing quantity over quality.
I'm inclined to agree. Go to a buffet if you want a ton of food
>>7596538
>The difference is that food is so tied to class.
I would say the barrier to entry for a low class person to have a fancy degustation meal as opposed to owning a Ferrari is pretty different.
>>7598509
It's not the cost of entry, but the class prejudice associated with it. If a poorfag wins the lottery and buys a Ferrari his friends will ask to ride in it. Because it's OK to be poor and dream of a fast car. But if our lottery winner starts going out to Michelin starred restaurants and drinking wine with a couple decades of bottle age on it his friends will talk behind his back about how pretentious he's become. Because it's not OK to be poor and aspire to fine dining. That must be viewed as a waste of money, because that involves a cultivated sense of taste, which the poor do no put any value in.
>>7598585
Well Fuck the poor.
Also, that reminds me of this guy I know. Poor as fuck, takes care of his sick mom, lives on busboy wages, but all day long he pores over cookbooks from Ferran Adria or Heston Blumenthal, tries to recreate them in his tiny kitchen from whatever he can scrounge up from the Big Lots.
Once or twice a year he will scrounge up a hundred bucks or so and get a small meal at some high-end Michelin starred spot, but you just know that in that one meal, he is experiencing so much more than any of us could. It's his catharsis from a year staring at food, reading critic reviews, and toiling away dreaming of that one night he gets to elevate himself above his shitty position in life. It's very endearing to me.
Only in America, you could say...
>>7598634
>dreaming of that one night he gets to elevate himself above his shitty position in life.
I didn't come here to feel these feels...
>>7598634
>busboy
He gets a pass because technically he's industry.
>>7594668
Funny you should post this receipt. Just checked out the MASA website and found this.
>Effective March 1st, gratuities will no longer be expected or accepted at Masa. Reflecting the Japanese custom, exceptional hospitality is an integral part of the Masa dining experience and is provided to every guest. The price for dinner at Masa will be $595 per person, not including beverages and tax. Both cash and credit card gratuities will be respectfully declined.
Any plate that costs more than $30 is a meme and is designed to get money out of rich people and retarded poor people.
