20061030

The Puked Diarrhea Scabs Eaters

[EDIT: The HTML for this is killing me- I'll fix this ASAP]

[[EDIT: The HTML has utterly defeated me, at least for now. I've been trying to get a post breaker so that this incredibly long post would appear on its own page instead of the front page, but Blogger is being a total, complete whore. I'm considering moving to Wordpress, where all this would just be a simple button click, but nothing ever goes my way. I'll expand on this in my next post.]]

Some people....


So I've been running a word-of-mouth poll on that deep wound of a subject that Puked Diarrhea Scabs (hereon after PuDS) is to me. As I've explained to my friends, there's not that many things that make me gag, but PuDS and most any oatmeal (for its similar consistency to PuDS) will nauseate me. How something so vile could be ingested by otherwise seemingly normal people, I'll never know.

Anyways, I've talked about this with a number of my friends, most found the suggestion of letting cereal age in milk to be ludicrous. What saddened me was that there was more than one other person that actually liked consuming PuDS orally- I was too disgusted to actually pursue the reasoning behind such atrocious behavior...

Oh, and not only that, I got into this argument with Armando, the second of my so-called friends to reveal to me his sickening lifestyle choice-

Armando J Doval: You will never convince me that soggy cereal is anything less than awesome, no matter how hard you try.
GKeepah: I'm sorry dude, but that's the most horrible thing you could inflict orally to a human being. I'm 110% certain that the Geneva Conventions have banned soggy cereal since at the very least 1864. I bet the real horrors of the Battle of Solferino was soggy cereal
Armando J Doval: Some things just get better the more you let 'em break down. Sorta like ice cream. Who doesn't like periodically drinking the ice cream that melts in your cup?
Armando J Doval: It's like cooking in reverse.
GKeepah: Er... I prefer it in its original state, actually. In liquid form, it feels a bit loaded
Armando J Doval: Well, coming from someone who doesn't like soggy cereal, I guess I can't say I'm surprised. D:
GKeepah: And... Cooking really doesn't have a reverse now, does it?
Armando J Doval: Sure it does!
GKeepah: No, not really.
Armando J Doval: Yeah, it does D:
GKeepah: Dude. Will you think about this for a second?
Armando J Doval: Usually, cooking involves heating food to make it more fit for eating/more delicious.
Armando J Doval: So, it's opposite would be...letting it go back to room temperature to make it more delicious?
GKeepah: When you heat food, it changes physically and chemically. You can't really return to uncooked state something that was cooked, in other words, you can't reverse cooking.
Armando J Doval: You can reverse folding, even if the paper doesn't go back to its original (unwrinkled) state.
Armando J Doval: I mean, sure, it won't be perfectly flat anymore, but it won't be folded either.
GKeepah: Folding is not a chemical change through heat, now is it? That arguement is a logical fallacy.
Armando J Doval: No, but it's a process that can be reversed, yet doesn't result in the object returning to its original state.
GKeepah: One thing being true for something doesn't make it true for everything
Armando J Doval: You're missing the point. You can't define a process as not having an opposite just because its opposite doesn't return to object to its original state.
GKeepah: That's what the opposite is!
Armando J Doval: So you're saying unfold is not the opposite of fold?
GKeepah: I'd love to know what the hell that un' prefix is there for, then
Armando J Doval: Well, then, if it is, then it's alright for the paper to be wrinkled, right?
GKeepah: A buh?
GKeepah: Dude, where are you going with this?
GKeepah: Please establish for me how this paper arguement is relevant
Armando J Doval: Your argument is that cooking can't have an opposite because you can't return food to its original state, right?
GKeepah: Yes.
GKeepah: I said you can't reverse cooking, yes.
Armando J Doval: Then, folding can't have an opposite unless you can perfectly flatten the paper so that it returns to its original (i.e. smooth, unwrinkled) state.
Armando J Doval: But if you acknowledge the act of unfolding as the opposite of the act of folding, even if the paper doesn't return to the exact state as it once was...
Armando J Doval: Then cooking can have an opposite action, even if the food doesn't return exactly to its original state.
GKeepah: You can so return a paper to flatness.
Armando J Doval: The creases of the fold will remain. Unless you're a) some sort of Japanese origami master, or b) Noriko Readman, I kinda doubt that >.>
Armando J Doval: Ok, I'll give you a concrete example.
GKeepah: Make a fold on a piece of paper. Unfold it. Put it between two heavy books for a period of time. Lol flat. You're using semantics and an unrelated arguement to try to detract from an arguement you can't debate directly
Armando J Doval: Dude, you will NEVER get rid of that fold.
Armando J Doval: It's always going to stay there. It's a small change, and yes, you can iron it out quite a bit, but it's still not like a brand new sheet of paper.
Armando J Doval: I'll give you a concrete example.
GKeepah: Please do
Armando J Doval: When you cook a pizza, the cheese melts, and you could say it's in a liquid (or near-liquid state.)
Armando J Doval: If you let the pizza cool, the cheese will return to a mostly solid state, although it'll all have fused together.
Armando J Doval: You've returned the cheese to its solid state, and if you were to reheat the pizza, that would be considered cooking it once again, for you would be making it more fit for consumption through heating.
Armando J Doval: Of course, that cheese won't look exactly the same as it did in the beginning, but it's not hot nor liquid anymore, so you've undone the cooking process.
GKeepah: Cooking the cheese has changed its chemical composition. Cheese is a bad example BECAUSE of how much cheese changes. Take mozzarella cheese from the fridge. Heat half of it to melting point in a microwave, then put it back in the fridge until it is as cool as the uncooked half. Taste it. If you can't tell the difference in texture, taste and consistency, then you're inserting it in the wrong orifice in your person
Armando J Doval: Alright. So it's not perfectly analogous since it involves a physical change. However, that's a matter of the degree to which you want to submit it to change.
Armando J Doval: I could argue that if you were to fold the paper, say, 100 times, and then unfold it, the paper would be that much more different from its original state.
GKeepah: Which is why I bothered to mention the chemical change that occurs, instead of just the physical one
Armando J Doval: Hm. Are you sure melting cheese consitutes a chemical change (assuming you don't burn it,) though?
GKeepah: Yes, I'm 100% certain
Armando J Doval: Ok. It WAS a bad analogy. But surely there are things that undergo chemical change if you freeze them, as well?
GKeepah: That's right. And you can't reverse what happened to them either. Unfreezing will cool it down, but the damage is done
Armando J Doval: But defrosting/unfreezing can still be considered the opposite of freezing.
GKeepah: Yes, but it's not the truly a reverse, because you've permanently changed it
GKeepah: It's why cryogenesis is not yet workable
GKeepah: You freeze a dude, and when you unfreeze him, he kinda... cracks and chips, like ice usually does
Armando J Doval: lol
Armando J Doval: Alright, I won't argue that it's a complete reverse.
Armando J Doval: But it's still the opposite action, even though you failed to reverse it totally.
GKeepah: I know. But I was arguing for reversing cooking, which was the word you used
Armando J Doval: Your initial argument was that it couldn't have an opposite, not that it couldn't be reversed, though.
GKeepah: Well, you brought in the paper thing and started using opposite as synonym to reverse
Armando J Doval: Nah, I was trying to use the paper as an example of an action whose opposite doesn't completely reverse its effects (i.e. unfolded paper stays wrinkled.) I was trying to argue that they don't have to be synonymous.
GKeepah: It had the total opposite effect, no pun intended
Armando J Doval: Yeah, I noticed ^^;


And the sad part is, this is one of our lighter, shorter arguments. Now, let's tally things up among people I've asked-

The Sexy Side of Good and Justice

Yamil, Tammy, Raquel, Andrew, Zeraphil, Bruno, and me.
Blessed are those that eat their cereal crunchy, for they shall inherit the Earth.

The PuDS Ingesters

Their ringleader, Lola; Armando (possibly worse, as he also likes melted ice cream. Ugh.), Apox, Melissa... And Pikkon says he likes it 'semi-soggy'- smells like a cop-out to me.


There, just like Stephen Colbert would do, I have called out the offending parties. I'm hurt, as I thought these people could do no wrong (well, ok, I'm 100% certain that Armando, Apox and Pikkon most certainly could, have, and will do), but then they go and drop this bomb on me. I've known Apox for 16 years! How would you feel if your brother stabbed you in the back and killed your family, at least symbolically through PuDS?

This issue is far from settled- which side are YOU on?

PS: Armando, it's YOMIKO Readman. Noriko is from Gunbuster.

18 comments:

Iguana Lola said...

Fucking tease.

Gravekeeper said...

Rawr :3 You know you like it...

Yamil said...

I lol'd.... but yeah arguing with Armando is like making a brick say hello

mangarang said...

I have to say, the logic of your "friend" is quite disturbing. I mean, unfolding paper does not equal un-cooking food in any analogical level. I find the argument to be, however, completely void of valid points of reasoning, since the conversation entails both parties to prove statements based on opinions. Which is, lets face it, impossible to do. However, soggy cereal tastes like shit and Armando and Lola should be hung and burned at the stake.

Gravekeeper said...

When I debate with somebody, I try to make sure I have references- that's why I'm stubborn when I argue about something- it's because I can back it up- I don't argue on whims. It's not opinons, it's facts.

Zeraphil said...

Yay, I got an honorable mention! Simply, the logical argument on Eddy's behalf was beautiful. Armando: when cheese melts, it goes under several processes. Lipids loose their cohesion to other lipid molecules, proteins de-naturalize, amongst other things. It's easier to exemplify with proteins. When you de-naturalize a protein, it undergoes a -permanent- chemical change to its secondary and tertiary structure (and sometimes its primary structure, too, if its a big molecule). Restoring that, in thousands of molecules, to perfection, is a bit difficult, and it's surely NOT the process of "uncooking".

I'd like to add to the definition of PuDS, if you allow, Eddy. Basically, it's being a sick conformist. I mean, if the cereal is too dry, you can choke on it, so that's why you use milk, so don't bother giving the "well, why don't you eat it without mil instead if it bothers you too much". Ever eaten a nature valley bar? I've almost died thrice on that shit. I want to eat my healthy whole grain without dying on it, thanks, but that doesn't mean I want it to cease being crunchy. If you have a cereal that turns soggy in less than a minute of soaking (everything Quaker) then it's a bad buy and shouldn't be out in the goddamn market! Especially when it's marketed crisp and crunchy for Pete's goddamned sake!!! Good cereals persist in their crunchiness, because that's how you bought it, crisp and crunchy, and that's how you wish to enjoy it, without dying from sharp edges in the process. If you like soggy cereal, then write Kellog's a letter asking for pre soggied cereal, but don't expect for proper people like us to withstand the being taken for idiots, buying a "crunchy" cereal that refuses to retain crispness (and flavor, for that matter)for no less than a minute!!! I have spoken.

Armando said...

Well, I have no fucking clue how to properly quote on these things, so bear with me.

Before I go on, I'd like to point out that I enjoy trolling Eddy very much, which is why I come up with such controversial, nonsensical, or just plainly messed up analogies in the first place. I wasn't completely serious in that conversation, and I certainly didn't expect my arguments to be picked apart on a public forum, but hey, I can argue seriously too >:3

Zeraphil said...
"I'd like to add to the definition of PuDS, if you allow, Eddy. Basically, it's being a sick conformist."
And how, exactly, is it being a sick conformist? If anything, we go against the expected behavior (and by expected I mean that from a PuDS perspective; i.e. non-PuDS are expected to conform and enjoy our cereal crunchy like the rest of the cereal eaters.)

"If you have a cereal that turns soggy in less than a minute of soaking (everything Quaker) then it's a bad buy and shouldn't be out in the goddamn market! Especially when it's marketed crisp and crunchy for Pete's goddamned sake!!!"
I'll give you that if a cereal is marketed as being crisp and crunchy, then it should stay crisp and crunchy. However, the part that comes next is rather troubling, because...
"Good cereals persist in their crunchiness, because that's how you bought it, crisp and crunchy, and that's how you wish to enjoy it, without dying from sharp edges in the process."
...it's completely subjective, and as far as I can tell, there's as many PuDS as there are non-PuDS. Such a sweeping generalization is out of place. That aside, the reason you gave to justify why a good cereal is one that persists in its crunchiness is flawed; you said it's because "that's how you bought it." Well, some people prefer their jeans worn and faded, so the product's original state has nothing to do with which state has the most value.

"If you like soggy cereal, then write Kellog's a letter asking for pre soggied cereal, but don't expect for proper people like us to withstand the being taken for idiots, buying a "crunchy" cereal that refuses to retain crispness (and flavor, for that matter)for no less than a minute!!!"
Why would I ask for pre-soggied cereal, when I can wait a mere minute for it to get deliciously mushy (in no more than a minute, apparently?) Moreover, because the soggification process is non-reversible, it's more convenient for Kellogg's and the consumers to have the cereal in its virgin state. A box of soggy cereal only satifies a PuDS, but a box of crunchy cereal can satisfy both sides. It's the same reason I don't buy bread pre-toasted.

If anything, non-PuDS are the ones that need to be writing letters to Kellogg's to petition for cereal that retains its crunchiness longer. You guys are the ones that are getting the shaft, not us.

And, once again, I'd like to remind you that we PuDS were fine with the way things were. Before Eddy decided to label us and berate us for personal preferences we don't consciously choose (and therefore can't change on a whim,) there were no PuDS and non-PuDS - only cereal eaters. Hell, the name "PuDS" itself only serves to underscore Eddy's lack of tolerance for those who are different from him.

David said...

And how, exactly, is it being a sick conformist? If anything, we go against the expected behavior (and by expected I mean that from a PuDS perspective; i.e. non-PuDS are expected to conform and enjoy our cereal crunchy like the rest of the cereal eaters.)

Conformist, being, someone who pays for something, and doesen't fight for the right of getting what he paid for. I'm sure that in the future, when you buy your own car, if it turns out a lemons, you won't even think of upholding the lemon law: You'll go "oh well" and continue on.

I'll give you that if a cereal is marketed as being crisp and crunchy, then it should stay crisp and crunchy. However, the part that comes next is rather troubling, because...

Bingo.

...it's completely subjective, and as far as I can tell, there's as many PuDS as there are non-PuDS. Such a sweeping generalization is out of place. That aside, the reason you gave to justify why a good cereal is one that persists in its crunchiness is flawed; you said it's because "that's how you bought it." Well, some people prefer their jeans worn and faded, so the product's original state has nothing to do with which state has the most value.

Subjective? You give me the reason in the paragraph before, then say it is subjective. What kind of comment is that. If you buy a cereal being marketed crisp and crunchy, then a good cereal is one that upholds this marketing, there is no sweeping generalization. If you buy such cereal, it's because of how it was marketed. I added "that's how you bought it" not as the single reason for why a good cereal, one which upholds how it is sold, but as the emphasis on why it is so important to criticize false advertising and sogginess when it should be crunchiness. By the way, they sell stone faded jeans for people that like to wear those jeans. That is a bad argument, and no longer an excuse. If I by a dark blue jean, it's because I like the dark blue, I'm not thinking of fucking it up, since right next to it they market "stone washed and torn blue jean" for the same price.

Why would I ask for pre-soggied cereal, when I can wait a mere minute for it to get deliciously mushy (in no more than a minute, apparently?) Moreover, because the soggification process is non-reversible, it's more convenient for Kellogg's and the consumers to have the cereal in its virgin state. A box of soggy cereal only satifies a PuDS, but a box of crunchy cereal can satisfy both sides. It's the same reason I don't buy bread pre-toasted.

It would have been a good argument, but the problem is exactly that. non-Puds WANT a cereal that doesn't turn mushy in less than a minute. For Frosted flakes to turn mushy, you have to wait quite a bit, not just "a minute", which is why I don't have to write any letters to anyone. A minute mushiness is Quaker Squares, which I label bad cereal. It is falsely advertised, and a crappy cereal overall. If you want to wait the 7 or 8 minutes or so for Frosted Flakes to turn mushy, be my guest. You invite yourself to warm milk, bacteria growth, or other type of hazardous health effects if left unattended. So no, I think cereals properly advertised and crunchy and crisp the whole way through are just fine the way they are. Where you are right, though, is where I could write a letter to Quaker saying what a crap of cereal they make overall, but hey, if you like that, then by all means, I won't, and you can keep giving them money to buy "crisp, cinnamon squares", crisp meaning (crisp for 30 seconds).

On the PuDS eulogy... well, you can slam Eddy for that, I didn't make it up, but you assumed incorrectly some things ,and I had to clear them up.

Gravekeeper said...

Well then, I might as well add something too. Armando, let’s start with your initial paragraph, were you try to wash your hands to make it seem like you’re above this argument, that you merely rebutted me on a whim. This reeks of a cop-out, especially since you go to similar lengths to back up your claims in any argument we have, and never do you end it with, ‘Oh, I wasn’t serious, I just felt like being a combative PuDSface.’ If everything we argue about is a joke to you, let me tell you, your comedic tone and timing is terrible.

I don’t think I really need to add much to David’s argument, he’s summed it up pretty nicely- you are a conformist through sheer inaction. You take it as you are given it, not as you deserve it. You do not seek greatness, for mediocrity gets the job ostensibly part-done. You *choose* to let your cup fill only half-way up, despite life offering the oceans to you. You take the easy path.

Again, I’ve nothing to add to David’s rebuttal, the man can defend himself quite well on his own- however, Armando, I do *not* lack tolerance- do not mistake the voicing of my opinion as anything more than that- you are free to do as you like, and I believe you still consume melted coffee ice-cream and soggy cereal to this day, for I have not forced you to change your illogical ways.

If I did not tolerate you, then I wouldn’t hang with you, or any of my other PuDSy friends- we all have a grand old time whenever we’re out, and I don’t think your sogginess has changed how I relate to you in the least. In fact, I’m pretty open-minded about many things, and very tolerant of people, despite how much I may disagree with them- but, just like how I would try to dissuade a friend who’s picking up smoking, I don’t like letting my friends short-change themselves like that. Pardon me for wanting better for my friends.

Armando said...

Conformist, being, someone who pays for something, and doesen't fight for the right of getting what he paid for. I'm sure that in the future, when you buy your own car, if it turns out a lemons, you won't even think of upholding the lemon law: You'll go "oh well" and continue on.

That's not conformity. From the Wiktionary:
Noun

conformity

1. State of things being similar, or identical.
2. The ideology of adhering to one standard or social uniformity.

Regardless, your argument is still flawed. A PuDS eater prefers his cereal soggy, therefore, the sooner it becomes soggy, the better. We'd only be settling for less if decided to jump the gun and eat the whole thing while it's still crunchy. Again, PuDS eaters couldn't care less if our cereal gets soggy in under a minute. It benefits us. Just because we didn't get what the box said doesn't mean we got cheated out of our money. To state otherwise would be asinine. If you buy a computer, and it was advertised that it has a 15" monitor, but when you open the box you find a 19" monitor instead, you didn't get what you paid for, and you didn't get what they advertised either, but you certainly didn't get cheated out of your money.

Subjective? You give me the reason in the paragraph before, then say it is subjective. What kind of comment is that.

A comment that's still valid, I assure you. You made two statements; I agreed with the former, and disagreed with the latter. The first part was that if a cereal is advertised as being crunchy, then the consumer should get a crunchy cereal, otherwise, it's false advertisement. I agreed there. The second statement was that a good cereal is one that is crunchy. That statement, as you had worded it, was a generalization, because some people believe a good cereal is crunchy, while others believe a good cereal is soggy. Whether or not a cereal's advertisement is honest has no bearing on whether or not the cereal itself is good.

If you buy a cereal being marketed crisp and crunchy, then a good cereal is one that upholds this marketing, there is no sweeping generalization.

Again, not necessarily. An HONEST cereal is one that upholds that marketing. A GOOD cereal...is a matter of opinion, ergo, subjective.

If you buy such cereal, it's because of how it was marketed.

Once again, not necessarily either. If we assume for a moment that I regularly buy Quaker brand cereal (I don't, by the way,) I might buy it because I know that unlike what it advertises, it becomes soggy quickly, a quality that I desire in my cereals. So, no, you don't necessarily buy the good cereal (which, again, is not synonymous to the honest cereal...) because of the way it's advertised. That only holds true the first time you buy it and the first time only, because you have nothing else to go on but the advertisement.

I added "that's how you bought it" not as the single reason for why a good cereal, one which upholds how it is sold, but as the emphasis on why it is so important to criticize false advertising and sogginess when it should be crunchiness.

That may very well be true. Regardless, even if you meant to say otherwise, the fact is that you specifically stated: "Good cereals persist in their crunchiness, because that's how you bought it, crisp and crunchy, and that's how you wish to enjoy it, without dying from sharp edges in the process." But no matter how you look at it, it's still a moot point, because we're not debating marketing ethics or whether we should support cereal companies that advertise dishonestly; we were discussing why PuDS eaters are or aren't an aberration, and whether or not they should be chastised for their eating habits. To continue the false advertisement argument would just be needlessly straying from the topic. But if you want, I could humor you.

By the way, they sell stone faded jeans for people that like to wear those jeans. That is a bad argument, and no longer an excuse. If I by a dark blue jean, it's because I like the dark blue, I'm not thinking of fucking it up, since right next to it they market "stone washed and torn blue jean" for the same price.

Do I get bonus points for identifying a Straw Man fallacy?

That wasn't the point of the analogy at all. The point I was making, which was clearly stated, was that we don't always buy the product because we prefer it in its original state. I could replace jeans with something that can degrade into another state that some people find favorable, yet isn't sold in this state, and the point would be the same. Besides, what if the jeans are a gift?

A minute mushiness is Quaker Squares, which I label bad cereal. It is falsely advertised, and a crappy cereal overall.

I agree. Quaker Squares do go mushy rather quickly, and they are falsely advertised. It is a dishonest cereal, and I also consider it pretty bland-tasting.

If you want to wait the 7 or 8 minutes or so for Frosted Flakes to turn mushy, be my guest. You invite yourself to warm milk, bacteria growth, or other type of hazardous health effects if left unattended. Are you serious? Milk, at refrigerator temperatures, does not reach room temperature in 8 minutes. It may be slighly less cool than it originally was, but that much is a given. Bacteria growth and hazardous health effects? Don't make me laugh! Do you refuse to take the last pizza slices left in the box because they've been exposed to air for more than 8 minutes? You've never invoked the 5 second rule? When I eat cereal, the least of my worries is the rate of bacteria accumulation on my milk.

On the PuDS eulogy... well, you can slam Eddy for that, I didn't make it up, but you assumed incorrectly some things ,and I had to clear them up.

As did you. Among them, accusing me of being a fervent Quaker brand supporter.

Armando said...

Eddy wrote something while I was still replying to David, so I'll try to keep this short, since my previous post was of monumental lengths. A second wall of text would be murder for anyone hoping to finish reading this week.

Armando, let’s start with your initial paragraph, were you try to wash your hands to make it seem like you’re above this argument, that you merely rebutted me on a whim. This reeks of a cop-out, especially since you go to similar lengths to back up your claims in any argument we have, and never do you end it with, ‘Oh, I wasn’t serious, I just felt like being a combative PuDSface.’ If everything we argue about is a joke to you, let me tell you, your comedic tone and timing is terrible.

I never said *everything* we argue about is a joke. I never claimed that in writing what I did, it was a universal rebuttal to all that you had argued, either. The arguments stated are still valid, and if I argued erroneously, then it's still my bad, because, like you said, I never made my little disclaimer during the argument. And hey, so what if I got through similar lengths on an argument I'm taking seriously? Maybe my comedic tone and timing ARE awful. But if you choose to pursue an argument that I had started in jest, or half in jest (regardless of whether you're at fault for the misinterpretation or not...that's really not the point,) I *will* continue to argue with whatever I have to work with. Isn't that how we've had our most interesting discussions?

I already explained my thoughts on David's argument so I'll just skip straight to end...

...however, Armando, I do *not* lack tolerance- do not mistake the voicing of my opinion as anything more than that- you are free to do as you like, and I believe you still consume melted coffee ice-cream and soggy cereal to this day, for I have not forced you to change your illogical ways.

Relax, I wasn't serious, since the harsh things you've said about PuDS eaters weren't serious, either.

...but, just like how I would try to dissuade a friend who’s picking up smoking, I don’t like letting my friends short-change themselves like that. Pardon me for wanting better for my friends.

That's quite noble of you, but rest assured, eating cereal in PuDS form won't shorten my life span. If it won't have adverse effects on us, and we like it better the way we've been doing it up until now, then there's no need for you to worry, right?

Gravekeeper said...

Armando, for the record, from Merriam-Webster

Conform

1 : to be similar or identical; also : to be in agreement or harmony -- used with to or with -changes that conform with our plans-
2 a : to be obedient or compliant -- usually used with to -conform to another's wishes-

Compliance

1 a : the act or process of complying to a desire, demand, proposal, or regimen or to coercion b : conformity in fulfilling official requirements
2 : a disposition to yield to others

Yield

intransitive verb
1 : to be fruitful or productive : BEAR, PRODUCE
2 : to give up and cease resistance or contention : SUBMIT, SUCCUMB

Dave was not mistaken in his use of 'conform'.

David said...

Thanks, that should clear up the conformist part.

Change Good for Honest, whatever you want, I apologize if it was not clear. And the marketing argument is not a deviation from the initial point, it still makes sense on how logical it is to choose one type of cereal over another. I wasn't discussing the validity of PuDS, since it's a term I'm not even stating, I'm just considering whether its logical or not to buy a cereal that stays cripsy just to watch it get soggy, when you can just buy a cereal that gets soggy quicker aka Quaker.

About the jeans analogy, you should have worded it a bit better. Oh, by the way, that isn't a straw man fallacy, in any case it is a false dilemma fallacy, better, but I didn't indicate that's your -only- choice. And who cares if it is a gift, it doesn't change the fact that if there's something that you want, and it's available at X state, then there's no sense of buying Y to make into X. Of course, you'll say "oh, but cereal is not sold soggy, that's why we buy it in the normal state" to which I agree, and thus the point all along. I hate cereal that turns immediately soggy, you don't, so buy that brand or whatever, but it's not very intelligent to spend your money (extra, surely, if not the same) on a brand that stays crispier for longer. You want cold coffee, you buy a frapuccino, not hot coffee so you wait until it gets cold. See?

The 5 second rule is a fallacy, and you can look it up if you want. Also, you don't want me to make you laugh? So you're saying you shouldn't worry about bacterial growth in your milk? Milk starts decomposing the second it is exposed to air, friend. Here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2w262507074182h/fulltext.pdf
Laugh for a bit.

Oh, and you -should- worry. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3886727&dopt=Abstract
Keep searching around, there's a whole lot of stuff of why I should be laughing at your "Bacteria growth and hazardous health effects? Don't make me laugh!" comment. Don't bullshit around with bacterial growth in milk, you'd be pretty surprised, I've done experiments myself, and while it isn't 7 minutes quick, it gets ugly pretty fast, and considering a typical growth curve, 7 minutes, about a third of the time, is still enough to get streptococcus up and running. Don't take my word for it, I gave you the link, so I can make you laugh.

Did you laugh enough? Good, I like making jokes. Now the point changes to something more important. Is waiting for crisp cereal to turn soggy inoffensive to health? I'm guessing it depends on how long the milk is out, what type of milk, and the cereal type and length it takes to soggify, but, as the evidence supports it (you're welcome to try and find something that says that milk does NOT decompose quick when exposed to air. Good luck.) the ones taking the risk are the so called PuDS. You should read a bit about that, makes what seemed a "jest" slightly more serious than what I thought of. By the way, I wouldn't be laughing right about now.

Armando said...

Ok. My bad on the Conformity bit. You got me.

As for the Straw Man bit, it may be a false dilemma, but it also became a straw man setup when you misinterpreted the point of the analogy, refuted something that was besides the point, and then claimed to have refuted the point altogether. But either way...just replace jeans with a GameCube Controller. Most good Smashers (or people that play Super Smash Bros Melee if you aren't familiar with that term) can only play with their own controller for a reason - it wears down in a certain way that we get used to, and which is different from the feel of a new controller, and different from everyone else's. If I bought a controller to replace the one I currently have, I'd want to wear it down so it feels like the old one, in addition to ripping off the little plastic caps on the analog stick and C-stick (since mine no longer has them and I've gotten used to it being that way.) In addition to that, some people paint their controllers, so someone buying a blue controller may not want it because it's blue, and probably couldn't care less what color it is since he'll just paint over it anyways. The point is simple - you don't always prefer the product's original state.

And while it may be illogical to buy the brand that takes longest to become soggy if you want it soggy, it's even more illogical to give its rate of soggification a higher priority than its taste. I guarantee most PuDS eaters pick their cereal according to how it tastes, not how quick or slow it turns soggy in milk.

Also, there's a difference between a box of cereal and a frappuccino. It takes longer for a hot coffee to reach room temperature than it takes a bowl of cereal to get soggy, and you wouldn't be able to make that coffee cold unless the Starbucks you bought it at also happens to rent out refrigerators. Another significant difference is that if you bought a coffee or a frappuccino, odds are, it's for you. It's not the same as buying a whole box of soggy cereal or an entire bag of pre-toasted bread. A good portion of the population lives with at least one other person, and there's a good chance that that one of those other people will want crunchy cereal or bread that's not toasted. Hell, there's a good chance that you'd want bread that's not toasted yourself at some point, so that's biting yourself in the ass. Not to mention that soggifying cereal or toasting bread are non-reversible processes, whereas heating or cooling coffee are. Besides, a coffee and a frappuccino are two different things regardless of their temperatures. A hot frappuccino is not the same as the usual cappuccino.

And of course the 5 second rule is a fallacy. Do you think that stops people from doing it? Do they all get sick every time they do it? As for the milk bacteria issue, that doesn't say anything for the growth rate of bacteria in milk relative to the growth rate of bacteria in other foods. If there's at least one other common food product that accumulates bacteria at a rate equal to or greater than milk when exposed to air, but which we enjoy more than once every blue moon without giving it much thought, then it's a moot point.

By the way, here's some food for thought - the Kellogg's Corn Flakes (my favorite cereal, by the way) box that's sitting atop the fridge in my kitchen right now doesn't mention the words "crispy," "crunchy," or even "crisp" on any of its 6 sides. The only two marketing gimmicks on that box are "The Original and the Best" (which is true...other brands of corn flakes don't compare to Kellogg's) and "Ahora con Defensa K!" And for whatever it's worth, it DOES contain the Iron, Zinc, and Vitamins A and C that the "K Defense" emphasizes so much. Kellogg's Corn Flakes make no promises about crunchiness nor sogginess, so I'm getting exactly what I paid for - quality corn flakes. I'm willing to wager that a lot of Kellogg's boxes don't mention crunchy or crispy either, save for Rice Crispies, since that's supposed to be their thing.

Anonymous said...

Wow... this site is so useful. I just wanted to know how do you monetize it? Can you give me a few advices? For example, I use http://www.bigextracash.com/aft/2e7bfeb6.html

I'm earning about $1500 per month at he moment. What will you recommend?

Anonymous said...

It's an amazing article in support of all the web users; they will take advantage from it I am sure.

My web-site - weightloss motivation

Anonymous said...

Hello! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this
website? I'm getting tired of Wordpress because I've had issues with hackers and I'm looking at alternatives for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

Feel free to surf to my site - rheumatoid arthritis treatment

Anonymous said...

non-alcoholic fatty liver medication non-alcoholic fatty liver medication
non-alcoholic fatty liver medication

Also visit my web-site - what type of doctor treats fatty liver disease