How to eat corn on the cob, and similar points of disagreement

[Obscuraphile]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

[Peelee]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

What sort of monster would turn the corn as they eat instead of going along the cob, then rotating? We didn't evolve for all these years to not eat like typewriters, thankyouverymuch.

[AuthorGirl]

We didn't evolve for all these years to not eat like typewriters, thankyouverymuch.

May I sig this? It's too perfect not to sig.

[Palanan]

...catios....

[Strigon]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

I haven't eaten corn on the cob in years, but when I did I rotated the corn as any rational human being would.
Who in their right mind eats bread butter side down? That's lunacy, and extra work besides!

[AuthorGirl]

...catios....

*facepalm*

I cannot believe how forgetful I am. I'm very sorry, I'll do the relevant fighting with tech tomorrow, and you may harass me in PMs if I forget again.

[Peelee]

May I sig this? It's too perfect not to sig.

Always! Wheeeee!

[Goaty14]

• Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)
• A hotdog is officially considered a sandwich
• Water is not wet

[Obscuraphile]

• Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)
• A hotdog is officially considered a sandwich
• Water is not wet

Agreed but rather for aesthetic reasons. Also one should wipe sitting down.
Not so, a hotdog is a unique culinary category.
In the sense that nothing is wet, wet being an emergent property.

[Peelee]

• Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)

Is your toilet paper incredibly inconveniently placed? Do you get any extra tangible benefits of some sort if you can shave a fraction of a second off your bathroom time? Do you have a cat who likes to play with the toilet paper and if it comes down the front then the cat can unspool a huge amount but if it goes down the back they can just spin it around and around without wasting any?

All three are viable reasons to stand strong about toilet paper orientation. Now, I've never experienced the first two, so I have the paper go down the back.

[Keltest]

Is your toilet paper incredibly inconveniently placed? Do you get any extra tangible benefits of some sort if you can shave a fraction of a second off your bathroom time? Do you have a cat who likes to play with the toilet paper and if it comes down the front then the car can unspool a huge amount but if it goes diet the heck they can just soon it around and around without wasting any?

All three are viable reasons to stand strong about toilet paper orientation. Now, I've never experienced the first two, so I have the paper go down the back.

In my experience, TP coming down off the back tends to tear not along the perforation, but wherever it darn well feels like. That can leave you with raggedy edges that in turn will tear off and stay behind most uncomfortably.

[Peelee]

In my experience, TP coming down off the back tends to tear not along the perforation, but wherever it darn well feels like. That can leave you with raggedy edges that in turn will tear off and stay behind most uncomfortably.

I don't experience that, but hey, to each their own.

[Strigon]

• Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)
• A hotdog is officially considered a sandwich
• Water is not wet

• Yes
• No
• Fight me

[Algeh]

Well, if we're going to talk about eating corn, I'm going to have to link this: Analysis vs Algebra predicts eating corn?

[gooddragon1]

I don't know about most of that except that crunchy cookies are better than soft cookies. Also, only crazy people eat oatmeal raisin cookies and/or take cold showers.

[Obscuraphile]

I don't know about most of that except that crunchy cookies are better than soft cookies.

Depends on the cookie. I would never argue that fresh hot chocolate chip cookies should be crunchy. They must by definition be gooey and are 1000x better that way. Store bought cookies however should definitely be crunchy

[Togath]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

I usually eat it... after breaking it in half, by plucking kernels off like berries. I'm a little bit odd.
(probably helps that I usually eat it raw rather than boiled or grilled, since I like the more sugary taste which has the side effect of making the kernels firmer)

[Peelee]

I don't know about most of that except that crunchy cookies are better than soft cookies. Also, only crazy people eat oatmeal raisin cookies and/or take cold showers.

Depends on the cookie. I would never argue that fresh hot chocolate chip cookies should be crunchy. They must by definition be gooey and are 1000x better that way. Store bought cookies however should definitely be crunchy

Lies and falsehoods!

[Sprütche]

I like both crunchy and soft cookies. But they must not be mixed. I hate it when crunchy cookies become soft and vice versa. Same goes for cereals. That's a crime against breakfast.

[Rockphed]

Lies and falsehoods!

Snickerdoodles should be soft when they come out of the oven else they will turn into rocks as they cool. Soft chocolate chip cookies are better than crunchy ones, even when bought from the store. The only cookies that should be crunchy are oreos, windmill cookies, and gingersnaps. All other cookies should be soft and slightly chewy.

And corn is eaten by finding the patch of corn still on the cob closest to where I last bit down. Any other algorithm is likely to result in premature time wastage. In other words, I neither go around nor go along, but do a bizarre admixture of both.

As to the "water is wet" conversation, I'm confused. Can someone explain why this is even a question?

[Peelee]

Snickerdoodles should be soft when they come out of the oven else they will turn into rocks as they cool. Soft chocolate chip cookies are better than crunchy ones, even when bought from the store. The only cookies that should be crunchy are oreos, windmill cookies, and gingersnaps. All other cookies should be soft and slightly chewy.

The only cookies I eat are chocolate chip and oreo, so I'm perfectly fine with your analysis.

[Strigon]

As to the "water is wet" conversation, I'm confused. Can someone explain why this is even a question?

Some people think water is wet.
Others think that, for a number of reasons, it isn't wet. As I understand it, they claim that since water has no surface that would normally be dry, it can't be wet or dry. To them, claiming water is wet is like claiming the number 2 is cold; it's not simply wrong, it's completely inapplicable.

[Rockphed]

Some people think water is wet.
Others think that, for a number of reasons, it isn't wet. As I understand it, they claim that since water has no surface that would normally be dry, it can't be wet or dry. To them, claiming water is wet is like claiming the number 2 is cold; it's not simply wrong, it's completely inapplicable.

... There is no way an argument over that could go well. It is like trying to argue with Humpty Dumpty. They have obviously decided what the definition of 'wet' is in such manner that water cannot be wet.

[Obscuraphile]

Some people think water is wet.
Others think that, for a number of reasons, it isn't wet. As I understand it, they claim that since water has no surface that would normally be dry, it can't be wet or dry. To them, claiming water is wet is like claiming the number 2 is cold; it's not simply wrong, it's completely inapplicable.

Actually the way I approach the arguement is that things can only be wet if there is enough water to wet them.

No matter how much humidity is in the air you would never refer to the air as wet. Similarly if there is a single molecule of liquid water on a surface you wouldn't be able to feel it therefore despite the presence of water nothing is wet.

Wet is an emergent property of water. Water is not wet.

[Rockphed]

No matter how much humidity is in the air you would never refer to the air as wet.

Sure you would, though the typical adjective is "damp" for cold air and "moist" for warm air.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No matter how much humidity is in the air you would never refer to the air as wet.

I've been to tropical environments with air humidity at 100%. I can assure you I would happily and accurately describe the air in those environments as "very wet".

Wet is an emergent property of water. Water is not wet.

So your claim is that "water is not wet, it only makes things around it wet". So if I select any random molecule of H2O, I can note it is surrounded by water, which by your definition of "emergent property", I can be described as being wet. Therefore water is wet, because each individual particle of it is surrounded by water, that makes it wet.

Grey Wolf

[Obscuraphile]

Sure you would, though the typical adjective is "damp" for cold air and "moist" for warm air.

Can air, damp or moist, make something wet? Not talking about condensation or anything like that. Damp or moist air describes the water in it. The air itself is not wet.

So your claim is that "water is not wet, it only makes things around it wet". So if I select any random molecule of H2O, I can note it is surrounded by water, which by your definition of "emergent property", I can be described as being wet. Therefore water is wet, because each individual particle of it is surrounded by water, that makes it wet.

Grey Wolf

No, that is not my claim. My claim is that there is an unspecified and unspecifiable point at which there is enough liquid water in one place to make something wet.

The definition, not my definition, of "emergent property" is "a characteristic of a system which is not possessed by any of the system's constituent parts." Water is not wet because it is possible for there to be water without wet yet it is not possible for something to be wet without water.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

My claim is that there is an unspecified and unspecifiable point at which there is enough liquid water in one place to make something wet.

Yes, that is most definitely your definition, but since the actual definition of wet is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid.", you are literally arguing that a word doesn't mean what it means, therefore you are right. Which is a rather unsustainable argumentative position.

Is air saturated with water or another liquid when it's at 100% humidity? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

Is water covered with water? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

And, for the record, I am not at all interested in hearing you attempt to redefine the meaning of "wet" or attempt to "win" via the semantics of the Sorites paradox. Redefine wet all you want, no-one is required to agree with your redefinition, and by the common definition of the word, both air (when saturated with water) and water, and everything else covered or saturated with water or another liquid is wet.

Grey Wolf

[Obscuraphile]

Yes, that is most definitely your definition, but since the actual definition of wet is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid.", you are literally arguing that a word doesn't mean what it means, therefore you are right. Which is a rather unsustainable argumentative position.

Is air saturated with water or another liquid when it's at 100% humidity? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

Is water covered with water? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

And, for the record, I am not at all interested in hearing you attempt to redefine the meaning of "wet" or attempt to "win" via the semantics of the Sorites paradox. Redefine wet all you want, no-one is required to agree with your redefinition, and by the common definition of the word, both air (when saturated with water) and water, and everything else covered or saturated with water or another liquid is wet.

Grey Wolf

Well to begin it seems rather odd that you would come into a thread, on the friendly banter forum, about commonly disputed issues, and proclaim in a haughty tone that you don't want to participate.

The key word in the definition of wet that you quoted is liquid. Water vapor in the air (humidity) is not a liquid. Also I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet, yet mercury is liquid at room temperature.

It also doesn't make much grammatical sense to say water is covered with water. It's kind of like saying a sheet is covered by itself if you fold it. In a sense you're right but only partially.

This is like arguing over whether chickens or eggs came first. By definition it's a philosophical proposition meant to be unanswerable which people might choose to defend one side or the other to practice argumentation.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well to begin it seems rather odd that you would come into a thread, on the friendly banter forum, about commonly disputed issues, and proclaim in a haughty tone that you don't want to participate.

I do want to participate. I just don't want to have a boring "this is what a word ought to mean" discussion. It is also quite rich to suggest "water is wet" is a "commonly disputed issue".

The key word in the definition of wet that you quoted is liquid. Water vapor in the air (humidity) is not a liquid.

Yes, it is. It is liquid water in suspension.

Also I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet

Yes, I would.

It also doesn't make much grammatical sense to say water is covered with water. It's kind of like saying a sheet is covered by itself if you fold it. In a sense you're right but only partially.

And again you are trying to redefine something. I've already addressed this and you continuing to insist otherwise is, as I said above, boring.

This is like arguing over whether chickens or eggs came first. By definition it's a philosophical proposition meant to be unanswerable which people might choose to defend one side or the other to practice argumentation.

It is the same in that it keys on how the word is defined. But unlike "chicken egg", "wet" does have a clear definition that does not allow for the debate to happen.

Grey Wolf