that I need to blame someone here for that! Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Meh.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Synesthesia: this is not a dig at you. Just couldn't resist stealing your thread title.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its not my fault you choose to eat those vile black crisco and sugar filled things.
Nasty, nasty stuff.
If you had only listened to me.
Let this be a lesson to you.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'll accept the blame, so long as you send me the Oreos.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll accept the Oreos, as long as you blame Dogbreath.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is all your fault for not including milk.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'll accept neither the Oreos nor the blame.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I refuse to read the ingredient list on a package of Oreos. I cannot imagine my life without them, and choose to remain ignorant as to their nutritional value.
Have you guys tried them frozen?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I just got a deep fryer as a wedding present. The rest of this post writes itself.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I like Oreo ice cream. It's nice how the cookies soften up in there, without turning to mush.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Why would anyone put something as yucky (and poisonous) as Oreo cookies in something as wonderful as ice cream.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Did ya'll know that Hydrox came back for a limited time a while back?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Somethings are simply a matter of taste and each person is entitled to their own opinion. But somethings are objective facts you can't disagree about them without being wrong.
The vileness of Oreo cookies fall in the latter category. If you disagree, you are wrong and possible even evil.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
*revils in the evilness*
But katharina, of course I am also drinking milk!
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I saw that "winter" Oreos are available now - with red filling.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its not my fault you choose to eat those vile black crisco and sugar filled things.
Nasty, nasty stuff.
If you had only listened to me.
Let this be a lesson to you.
QFT
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Did ya'll know that Hydrox came back for a limited time a while back?
Yup. Don't like them either.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I had some horrible 7-11 sandwich cookies the other day. Made me wish I had Oreos.
And I'm irked at 7-11. A month or two ago, all of their house nosh went kosher. Most of it, anyway. They had kosher versions of Twinkies. And now they've switched manufacturers or something, and nothing's kosher except the nasty sandwich cookies and the vafelim. What are vafelim in English, wafers?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, wafers. And most are nasty.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Think of it as a blessing, Lisa. A whole bunch of CRAP that won't tempt you anymore.
Posted by Imamess (Member # 11549) on :
Mint Oreos Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Think of it as a blessing, Lisa. A whole bunch of CRAP that won't tempt you anymore.
I know. But... I'm so friggin over stressed that eating all that crap was my main outlet. Now what do I do? Go bang my head against a wall?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
THERE ARE MINT OREOS??
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The best Oreos are the Twenty-Stuf. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
OK, but, dude, Newman Os are better... Waaaay better than Oreos. They make Oreos taste like... like... I don't know, but the Newman Os, especially the ones with chocolate cream! So good!
They even taste good in ice cream!
Posted by Imamess (Member # 11549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: THERE ARE MINT OREOS??
Indeed there are mint oreos and they are delicious! I usually only eat them in the summer for some reason...I don't know if they're sold any other time.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Somethings are simply a matter of taste and each person is entitled to their own opinion. But somethings are objective facts you can't disagree about them without being wrong.
The vileness of Oreo cookies fall in the latter category. If you disagree, you are wrong and possible even evil.
This is Gospel truth. May I quote you?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Think of it as a blessing, Lisa. A whole bunch of CRAP that won't tempt you anymore.
I know. But... I'm so friggin over stressed that eating all that crap was my main outlet. Now what do I do? Go bang my head against a wall?
Eat good, Kosher, chocolate?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Think of it as a blessing, Lisa. A whole bunch of CRAP that won't tempt you anymore.
I know. But... I'm so friggin over stressed that eating all that crap was my main outlet. Now what do I do? Go bang my head against a wall?
Eat good, Kosher, chocolate?
Lisa does not like good chocolate, she prefers Hershey's.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Somethings are simply a matter of taste and each person is entitled to their own opinion. But somethings are objective facts you can't disagree about them without being wrong.
The vileness of Oreo cookies fall in the latter category. If you disagree, you are wrong and possible even evil.
This is Gospel truth. May I quote you?
Certainly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Think of it as a blessing, Lisa. A whole bunch of CRAP that won't tempt you anymore.
I know. But... I'm so friggin over stressed that eating all that crap was my main outlet. Now what do I do? Go bang my head against a wall?
Eat good, Kosher, chocolate?
Lisa does not like good chocolate, she prefers Hershey's.
Why would you make two direct statements like that, each one contradicting the other?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I do research on chocolate. There are quantifiable measures for good chocolate that Hershey's does not meet.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, Rabbit, there are not. That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of in my life. Those are measures for a given standard. One which you happen to embrace, while I don't.
You sound like people who claim there's art that's objectively good. Feh.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of in my life.
You must have had a very boring dry life.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You sound like people who claim there's art that's objectively good. Feh.
If your argument is that Hershey's is good, that's one thing. But arguing that it is "good chocolate" is another. Chocolate is a specific kind of thing, with specific qualities that make it chocolate. Hershey's lacks those qualities. That doesn't mean that people can't enjoy it. People enjoy all kinds of things. I myself think starbursts are delectable, but they aren't good chocolate and neither is Hershey's.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Fair enough. Let me rephrase it. I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life. Maybe there've been things equally ludicrous, but nothing surpasses the idea that there can be objective measures of taste.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You sound like people who claim there's art that's objectively good. Feh.
If your argument is that Hershey's is good, that's one thing. But arguing that it is "good chocolate" is another. Chocolate is a specific kind of thing, with specific qualities that make it chocolate. Hershey's lacks those qualities. That doesn't mean that people can't enjoy it. People enjoy all kinds of things. I myself think starbursts are delectable, but they aren't good chocolate and neither is Hershey's.
Chocolate is a specific class of things. Hershey bars are chocolate. Ghirardelli is chocolate. Dove bars are chocolate. They're all very different things, but they're still chocolate.
You want to tell me that some standards organization has declared that the word "chocolate" only applies to one specific thing, fine. That's "chocolate according to that standard", and a Hershey bar may not fit that. But that standard is not an objective one in any way.
In the US, you cannot, by law, sell milk from animals other than cows and call it simply "milk". "Milk", either by statute or regulatory fiat, means "cow milk". Any other type of milk must be specified. Sell goat milk as just milk, and you're in trouble.
Does this mean that goat milk isn't milk? No, it doesn't. It means that for certain uses, some people felt it was useful to limit the term so that it denoted a single thing, rather than a class of things. But that definition is only relevant within that context of usefulness.
Chocolate existed long before you and whatever group you're relying on decided it was only one member of the class. And it will exist long after everyone has forgotten about such a dumb standard.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Aw yeah...
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I fully support Lisa in this argument. *eats a Hershey's miniature*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: But that standard is not an objective one in any way.
Would you agree that there are things which are objectively not chocolate?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Maybe she just thinks there are things that are objectionably chocolate.
But come on, Hershey's chocolate isn't chocolate? What use is an objective standard if it contradicts consensus reality?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The last half of this thread simply MUST be parody.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I think they're just trying to make chocolate controversial.
I hope.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Maybe she just thinks there are things that are objectionably chocolate.
But come on, Hershey's chocolate isn't chocolate? What use is an objective standard if it contradicts consensus reality?
Consensus of whom? By the consensus of Europeans, Heshey's is not chocolate.
But the consensus of the EU isn't what I was talking about. In order to even discuss chocolate we have to agree about what chocolate is and is not. This is not the same as saying what tastes good and what does not taste good, it is defining what taste "like chocolate" and what taste like something else. So for example if we add mint or orange flavor to chocolate, a lot of people will think it tastes better -- but it doesn't taste more like chocolate. Chocolate with mint and chocolate with orange are not pure chocolate -- they are something else.
Similar many people find truffles (which are a chocolate combined with dairy fats and other flavorings) to be better than pure chocolate. But that doesn't make them better chocolate. Adding the dairy fats and flavoring makes them something else.
And if you look at Hershey's, it contains ingredients (like butyric acid and vegetable fats) which are not in pure chocolate. You may like it better than pure chocolate, but that's irrelevant. Chocolate with butyric acid flavoring isn't objectively pure chocolate anymore than chocolate with mint flavoring is pure chocolate. Its something else. Whether or not you like that something else is a question of taste. Whether or not it is in fact pure chocolate, is not.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Hmm, you just now brought up "pure."
I'd say ice cream with peanuts in it is still ice cream, even though peanuts are not ice cream.
The same way, chocolate with butyric acid in it is still chocolate.
"Pure chocolate" may indeed be something that Hershey's chocolate is not, but that's not what you were saying before.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'd just like to point out right now that "pure" chocolate is disgusting, and therefore should not be used synonymously with "good" chocolate.
But can we all agree that there's a difference between good quality chocolate and good tasting chocolate, one of which is more subjective than the other?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But can we all agree that there's a difference between good quality chocolate and good tasting chocolate, one of which is more subjective than the other?
No, I think "quality" is too vague a term to make this something we can all agree on. Perhaps for some people the only quality that matters is the way it tastes. And more esoteric qualities like melting point and the 'snap' might also be quite subjective in how they are valued by different people.
What I would agree to is that you can define an objective standard and then measure against it, and that would be something different from assessing how well you like something.
But even so, I would hesitate to define terms so strictly that "Hershey makes good chocolate" is an objectively false statement. Or rather, I would not assume that someone was using an objective standard for "good chocolate" when expressing a personal opinion on the product, and I would not expect casual use of the word "chocolate" to exclude a Hershey's bar.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Yes there are quality standards that apply to chocolate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I'd just like to point out right now that "pure" chocolate is disgusting, and therefore should not be used synonymously with "good" chocolate.
Are you sure you aren't confusing "pure chocolate" with "cocoa liqueur"? They are not the same.
By pretty much every accepted definition if it isn't "pure chocolate" it isn't chocolate. Its chocolate candy, or a chocolate confection but not "chocolate".
Like I said, if we are even going to discuss the issue we need to agree on what is and is not chocolate. That requires some sort of quantifiable definition. That isn't simple because chocolate isn't a pure substance like water. But there are things that we will all agree are not chocolate and some things we can all agree are chocolate, so somewhere in between there must be a point where things stop being chocolate and start being something else. We can argue about where that point is but any point we select would be controversial (which is not at all the same as subjective). Since chocolate is desirable, things that fall just outside the boundary of what we agree is really chocolate are always going to argue that the boundary should be moved.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I love those Hershey's Dark Chocolate Kisses. They're wrapped in purple foil, which is cool, and also they taste really good. Are you telling me they aren't chocolate?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes. Yes, she is.
I think it is safe to conclude that she is using a non-standard definition of chocolate.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Are you sure you aren't confusing "pure chocolate" with "cocoa liqueur"? They are not the same.
AFAIK, they are.
Random: My new favorite chocolate indulgence are the kisses Hershey's puts out near Christmas, like the mint truffle ones and the cherry cordial ones. I need a drooling emoticon.
[Edited to change Christman to Christmas, lest you all think I'd invented a new superhero of Biblical proportions.]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Lindt chocolate bars made up of little squares of truffles? Holy schmoley, they are fantastic.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I haven't had those, but Lindt truffles are a little piece of heaven. The white chocolate ones have so much fat in them that they coat your tongue and I can't eat more than two at a time, but Yowza. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The first time I had a Godiva key lime truffle, I actually made those yummy noises from commercials. It's too rich for all the time, but it can be completely amazing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's something I'm going to have to do. The next time I'm in the mall, I'm going to waltz right into the Godiva store and drop the three bucks for a truffle instead of walking by dejectedly like I have been for the last twelve years.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you should. It's worth doing just once.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Like I said, if we are even going to discuss the issue we need to agree on what is and is not chocolate. That requires some sort of quantifiable definition. That isn't simple because chocolate isn't a pure substance like water. But there are things that we will all agree are not chocolate and some things we can all agree are chocolate, so somewhere in between there must be a point where things stop being chocolate and start being something else. We can argue about where that point is but any point we select would be controversial (which is not at all the same as subjective). Since chocolate is desirable, things that fall just outside the boundary of what we agree is really chocolate are always going to argue that the boundary should be moved.
I don't think you are correct that we can not discuss what is good chocolate and what is not good chocolate without that initial agreement.
I do think the discussion will not proceed in your preferred mode without that definition.
I could point out that if we granted your premise, the end result would be that your initial argument - which is that Hershey does not make good chocolate - will be proven correct. But I think it's just as likely that you aren't consciously trying to frame the debate, and simply aren't keeping in mind that most of us are perfectly willing to discuss what we consider subjectively good without first delineating into objectively separate categories. Blurry lines suffice.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
My goodness, folks. It was Oreos that were supposed to be controversial. Leave the room for a few minutes and look what happens!
But as long as we're taking the gloves off, white chocolate is vile. I'm sure it's not really chocolate by anyone's definition, so I don't think we can argue that part. And if you don't think it's vile, well, you're just wrong.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
White chocolate can be fine as long as it is paired with something else that contributes a strong flavor. Raspberries, wasabi, etc.
By itself I don't like it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
White chocolate chili brownies = awesomesauce.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote: White chocolate chili brownies = double oxymoron.
Fixed that for ya!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: Are you sure you aren't confusing "pure chocolate" with "cocoa liqueur"? They are not the same.
AFAIK, they are.
Random: My new favorite chocolate indulgence are the kisses Hershey's puts out near Christmas, like the mint truffle ones and the cherry cordial ones. I need a drooling emoticon.
My favorite are the candy cane ones. I've never seen cherry cordial ones before. I'll have to check next time I'm at the store.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted:
quote: White chocolate chili brownies = double oxymoron.
Fixed that for ya!
It's true. They are, in no way, brownies. They're bar cookies with white chocolate chunks and chilies in them. I don't know why the word brownie is in the title.
They're good, though. The trick with white chocolate is that you can never think of them as chocolate, or you will be disappointed. If you go in thinking of them as vanilla chunks you'll have a better experience.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Yeah, I do think of it as vanilla chunks, or at least creamy white stuff, and it just isn't anything I want. Just . . . too sweet, but w/o the payoff you get from chocolate.
Those Mrs. Field cookies w/ white choc. chips and macadamia nuts? Nope. Feel free to put macadamia nuts in an actual chocolate chip cookie or even a plain cookie and I'll be happy, but leave those overly sweet white things out of them!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I've suddenly got a hankerin' for Oreos, and I don't even really like Oreos.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm telling you, Newman Os are way, way better than Oreos.
Also, I see Rabbit's point. And Lisa's too. Hershey's is not bad. Especially kisses. But they sort of dechocolified it in a way by adding... well... weird things. It tends to be a bit grainy. I kind of like grainy though, and I tend to not mind chocolate bloom, but for my chocolate needs I think I like Trader Joe's dark chocolate the best. It's cheap, with 3 bars for just $1.10 or a bit more. It's delicious and has a nice texture. Ghiradelli is always good with it's nice high sort of flavour.
Also the Godiva at my mall is giving away free truffles. I love those things. I'd like to have more of the good stuff for baking and trying to figure out how to make nipples of venus.
Also, I continue to be a chocolate purist who insists that chocolate doesn't need nuts, berries, fruit or anything like that. It mostly needs more chocolate!
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I've suddenly got a hankerin' for Oreos, and I don't even really like Oreos.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think you should. It's worth doing just once.
Doing just once? Whenever I walk by the Godiva store, I get a truffle. I so wish I was at the mall now.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I'm telling you, Newman Os are way, way better than Oreos. like that. It mostly needs more chocolate!
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I've suddenly got a hankerin' for Oreos, and I don't even really like Oreos.
Joe's O's. That's the good stuff.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I haven't tried those yet. I'm trying to cut down on Trader Joe's because it's all the way in Boston and they have so much good yummy stuff
Like Maple syrup. mmmm!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Yes there are quality standards that apply to chocolate.
In your opinion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: But as long as we're taking the gloves off, white chocolate is vile. I'm sure it's not really chocolate by anyone's definition, so I don't think we can argue that part. And if you don't think it's vile, well, you're just wrong.
It's not chocolate-chocolate, but it is white chocolate!
And while there are lots of brands that are vile, the good stuff -- preferably Swiss -- is marvelous.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Oreos = Yummy, most especially single stuffed in Ice Cream or Milk.
Hershey's = Icky - but consumable if one is desperate
Milka = Heaven!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Yes there are quality standards that apply to chocolate.
In your opinion.
No, by the consensus of regulatory agencies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes. Yes, she is.
I think it is safe to conclude that she is using a non-standard definition of chocolate.
What do you mean by "standard". If you are talking common usage, perhaps. But the common definition is not particularly useful since most people would agree that chocolate icecream, chocolate milk, chocolate brownies and chocolate mints are different things than "chocolate".
What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate". By US standards, more hershey's candies are "chocolate", but many don't qualify even under the extremely lax US standard. I don't know specifically about their dark chocolate kisses. If on the label, the are called chocolate candy kisses, that means that they don't qualify as chocolate under the legal definition.
Contrary to Lisa's assertion, this isn't a case where regulatory bodies are excluding things the label "chocolate" from things which have been long considered chocolate. What's actually happening is that companies like Hershey's have begun including ingredients in their chocolate candies which have long been agreed aren't ingredients of pure chocolate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your second sentence is total nonsense. The fact that you had to specify ice cream, milk, brownies, and mints in the names is exactly why they are different from regular chcolate.
Your post is such a perfect example of pathetic aggrandizement it simply MUST be parody. You can't possibly actually be that narrow.
That you don't even know what Hershey's Kisses are called on the bag means that you are speaking out of total ignorance. You'd think that before you got that self-important you'd do the minimum of research.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate".
I don't recognize the codex alimentarius as defining reality.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If on the label, the are called chocolate candy kisses, that means that they don't qualify as chocolate under the legal definition.
Legal usage and common usage are frequently dissimilar. Chocolate is far from the only thing where this is the case.
For casual discussion, the legal definition is often fairly irrelevant. As it is in this case.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate".
I don't recognize the codex alimentarius as defining reality.
Then offer an alternative definition. But like I said, it makes no sense to discuss chocolate unless we can agree on what chocolate is. Continuing to repeat that you don't accept my definition of chocolate is ludicrous unless you propose some alternative definition.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
I don't know whether Hershey's is real chocolate or sorta chocolate or merely chocolate flavored, but I do know it tastes burnt compared to other chocolate products. Like they went to melt it and walked away for a smoke break and forgot and the bottom scalded and they came back and said awww man but poured it in with the rest anyway. Its kinda gross.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: But as long as we're taking the gloves off, white chocolate is vile. I'm sure it's not really chocolate by anyone's definition, so I don't think we can argue that part. And if you don't think it's vile, well, you're just wrong.
It's not chocolate-chocolate, but it is white chocolate!
And while there are lots of brands that are vile, the good stuff -- preferably Swiss -- is marvelous.
White chcolate does not fit the legal definition of chocolate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:White chcolate does not fit the legal definition of chocolate.
That used to be true in the US (although not in Europe). As of I think 2002, "white chocolate" is legally defined in the US.
This is a step forward for the consumer. The reason that Swiss white chocolate is so good is that it contains large amounts of cocoa butter which give chocolate its characteristic texture. Prior to the creation of legal standards for "white chocolate" in the US, "white chocolate candies" could be marketed that contained no cocoa butter at all. These are nasty. Among professionals they are referred to as "coatings" not chocolate of any kind.
[ November 15, 2009, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate".
I don't recognize the codex alimentarius as defining reality.
Then offer an alternative definition. But like I said, it makes no sense to discuss chocolate unless we can agree on what chocolate is. Continuing to repeat that you don't accept my definition of chocolate is ludicrous unless you propose some alternative definition.
See, but I'm not trying to impose a purportedly "objective" definition of chocolate on you. I don't think there needs to be one, other than the vague one that says it's made from cacao beans and is recognizably chocolate to at least some people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If my previous experiences with so called "white chocolate" weren't so abjectly horrible, I might begin to want to believe there are confections of that kind that are otherwise.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do not believe in white chocolate. It's not really chocolate the way chocolate is chocolate.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"But like I said, it makes no sense to discuss chocolate unless we can agree on what chocolate is."
You keep repeating this, but you're the only one who thinks it's true (as far as I can tell). So perhaps for the rest of us, it makes sense to discuss chocolate without first taxonomizing.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This thread only goes to prove that people can argue about almost anything!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sez you. Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Joe's O's. That's the good stuff.
Joe Joe's. Because I'm just that easily influenced -- I was in Trader Joe's today and I bought some with chocolate creme filling. Next it will be the Newman's Os I'm sure.
Anyone remember Fudgetowns?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:See, but I'm not trying to impose a purportedly "objective" definition of chocolate on you. I don't think there needs to be one, other than the vague one that says it's made from cacao beans and is recognizably chocolate to at least some people.
Am I understanding you correctly that you think its reasonable to consider things as different as Oreo Cookies and Godiva Truffles as all part of the same general class of things that are "chocolate" and that you can't see any reason to refine that class any further?
If so, then I think your stance is quite different from the majority of people. I think most people think that brownies and chocolate ice cream are in a truly different category from "chocolate". I think that most people would agree that "white chocolate", "milk chocolate" and "semi-sweet chocolate" are sufficiently different kinds of things in objectively quantifiable ways.
As some one who has begun studying chocolate professionally, I know that products made from cocoa, like Rausch single plantation chocolates and Hershey's are as different in quantifiable objective ways as dark chocolate is from milk chocolate. They simply are sufficiently different in quantifiable objective ways that it doesn't make sense to refuse to distinguish between them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Am I understanding you correctly that you think its reasonable to consider things as different as Oreo Cookies and Godiva Truffles as all part of the same general class of things that are "chocolate" and that you can't see any reason to refine that class any further?
Nobody thinks that Oreos are chocolate. The cookie part are chocolate flavored, yes. Same with the outer part of a generic ice cream sandwich.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't call all Godiva truffles "chocolate" blankly. Some contain cherry, which is not chocolate. Some contain raspberry filling, which is not only not chocolate, but also an abomination.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
Does this mean you also think there is no reason to distinguish between things like Oreo cookies and Godiva truffles? You think they are both the same kind of thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They simply are sufficiently different in quantifiable objective ways that it doesn't make sense to refuse to distinguish between them.
Except when it does. Like when Sophie asks, "Can I have some chocolate," and I say no, but she can have anything else in the snack cabinet, that does not mean that I have given her permission to eat the one Hershey's bar there (even though it is not "chocolate" by your definition.)
Do you refuse to call sparkling wines "Champagne" unless they're from the right place?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
<yawn>
(To the tune of the Pink Panther theme:) Pedant, pedant, pedant pedant pedant pedant pedaaaaaaaant.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the words "Oreo cookies" and "Godiva truffles" do a dandy job of distinguishing between them.
quote:That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject.
Oh, honey. This is pride. In fact, that's a pretty classic example of enmitical pride. You assume that if people don't agree, then you must be superior in some way. You're not. You're not in possession of some special knowledge. What you are is LACKING in the knowledge of appropriate social discourse. You're the person singing a dirge at the birthday party. This is not because no one else knows the words to the dirge.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(For the record, BTW: I don't consider Godiva truffles to be all that good. Some of them are quite nicely flavored, but the quality of the actual chocolate in them is mediocre when their price is taken into account.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
Cool! Interesting stuff, The Rabbit. Why are you studying chocolate? Can I help? Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate". By US standards, more hershey's candies are "chocolate", but many don't qualify even under the extremely lax US standard. I don't know specifically about their dark chocolate kisses. If on the label, the are called chocolate candy kisses, that means that they don't qualify as chocolate under the legal definition.
Contrary to Lisa's assertion, this isn't a case where regulatory bodies are excluding things the label "chocolate" from things which have been long considered chocolate. What's actually happening is that companies like Hershey's have begun including ingredients in their chocolate candies which have long been agreed aren't ingredients of pure chocolate.
For the record, the mini Hershey bar that I just fished out of the Halloween leftovers is labeled "Milk Chocolate" not "Chocolate candy" or "Chocolate flavored candy."
I agree that Hershey's is not particularly good chocolate, but it seems to meet the US labeling standards, at least.
eta: The chocolate coating on Whoppers, however (also a Hershey product), aparently does not.
eata: Reese's and KitKat both do. And now I'm out of research options.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooh! What about Mars? Please tell me that M&Ms are still chocolate yumminess!
ETA: Here is an article about the changes Hershey has made to some of their candy and why some of it isn't chocolate - according to the FDA.
Dana, is your subconscious trying to make me gain weight?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You know, silly as this debate is, it really stems from the very heart of the differences between Lisa and I. Based on what she has in previous debates, Lisa does not believe that anything has intrinsic value. (Actually, although it is not what she says I have inferred that she really believes that nothing except individual human beings, has intrinsic value. I come from the diametrically opposite world view, I believe everything has some intrinsic value.
From Lisa's perspective, value (of anything but individuals) is a purely subjective idea. It has no meaning outside the preferences of an individual subject. I disagree with that underlying assumption. I think all things have some value whether people value them or not.
But we've been down this road before so I know what where its heading. Lisa will do nothing but repeat "nothing has intrinisic value". I will attempt to explore the issue by raising questions. She will refuse to address my questions and eventually start calling me a monster for asking those questions. So no, I'm not heading down that road. Its pointless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What is the intrinsic value of cocoa powder?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't agree.
That's extremely interesting actually. I didn't know that... Could you send me samples of those? What's the difference between them in terms of taste?
I always think no matter what a subject is, there's all of this stuff underneath it that I don't know about. Like guitars, moth cocoons, and pretty much everything. I'd like to know more.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I agree with both of you. Rabbit is being self-important and socially inappropriate, but she and I really do have a fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to "intrinsic values". I don't get how anything but a human life can have intrinsic value. A rock out on the sidewalk has value for me if I need it for something, or if I find it aesthetically pleasing. But if I don't need it or care about it, it has no value for me. Multiply "me" by everyone, and the same thing holds true. Absent someone valuing a thing, a thing can't be said to have value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I still want to know the intrinsic value of cocoa powder.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
About $3-20/pound, I think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I still want to know the intrinsic value of cocoa powder.
Tell me the intrinsic value of a human life and I will tell you the intrinsic value of cocoa.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ]I agree with both of you. Rabbit is being self-important and socially inappropriate, but she and I really do have a fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to "intrinsic values".
You never miss an opportunity to make personal attacks on me and yet you have the audacity to call me "socially inappropriate. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I said only that this was at the root of the disagreement between Lisa and I. Lisa has agreed. The reasons for your disagreement with me are entirely different.
You, like Lisa, never miss an opportunity to launch personal attacks on me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I said only that this was at the root of the disagreement between Lisa and I. Lisa has agreed. The reasons for your disagreement with me are entirely different.
You, like Lisa, never miss an opportunity to launch personal attacks on me.
It's interesting. Between the three of us, I think we've disproved the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" idea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rabbit, if you weren't so consistently and simultaneously 1) self-important and prideful, 2) wrong, and 3) selfishly rude about both, you'd find the world a great deal more friendly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Rabbit, if you weren't so consistently and simultaneously 1) self-important and prideful, 2) wrong, and 3) selfishly rude about both, you'd find the world a great deal more friendly.
I find my world extremely friendly. Don't presume that others share your opinion of me. I simply can't understand the way you respond to me because no one else in my world sees me or treats me that way.
Up until you chose to insult my character, this thread was a pretty silly argument about chocolate and I thought everyone recognized it. I don't understand why you chose to make it personal.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Has anyone else tried the oreo brownie? I dont care what its made of if its smushed into a brownie.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Has anyone else tried the oreo brownie? I dont care what its made of if its smushed into a brownie.
I love a good brownie. I think I'll go get one now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. I disagree with you just as much. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic value".
I don't think this is a philosophical discussion. It's just you being self-important and socially inappropriate.
I said only that this was at the root of the disagreement between Lisa and I. Lisa has agreed. The reasons for your disagreement with me are entirely different.
You, like Lisa, never miss an opportunity to launch personal attacks on me.
It's interesting. Between the three of us, I think we've disproved the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" idea.
Sun Tzu never fought battles on a forum.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
OK, as long as we're arguing chocolate, can anyone help me clarify me just what is meant by Belgian chocolate?
Here's the deal: I am helping plan a bday party for a friend who requested a chocolate fountain. The friend who is hosting the party happens to own a chocolate fountain which she has never used.
The directions say that you should either use: a. Belgian chocolate or b. Chocolate chips mixed w/ canola oil
Naturally, option a sounds vastly more appealing. It has something to do with the cocoa butter content of the chocolate.
So I did some googling and from what I can tell Godiva and one other brand whose name I can't remember now -- Leosomething? -- are both Belgian chocolate.
My questions are: can I go to my local grocery store and purchase Godiva or any other brand of Belgian chocolate, or do I have to go to a specialty store? Do you know of any other brands that are Belgian? Does Trader Joe's have it? I know they have Swiss but it's apparently not the same thing.
Or -- have you had experience w/ a chocolate fountain and found it works just fine w/ Cadbury or something? Any feedback gratefully appreciated.
I just have to add that I think it sounds like a disgusting thing to build a party around, but whatever, it's not my birthday. Blood sugar crash, here I come!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chocolate fountains can be pretty fun (if messy). It is sort of like fondue only not hot. You have skewers with pieces of fruit and cake or marshmallows that you dunk.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Sun Tzu never fought battles on a forum.
He also never compared Hershey's dark chocolate kisses or Valrhona 'Gran Couva" 64% Cocoa dark chocolate.
Would care to speculate whether or not he would have found the quality of the two chocolates subjective or objective?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Chocolate fountains are awesome actually. Well, in terms of taste. Health, probably not so much.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Uprooted, I have really no idea what your fountain means by "Belgian Chocolate". "Belgian Chocolate" is any chocolate made in Belgium. Trader Joes does sell a nice Belgian Chocolate.
Chocolate chips don't melt like normal chocolate coverture. I'm not sure exactly why, but melted chocolate chips are a lot more viscous than melted chocolate coverture. I suspect that its something they do to the chips so they retain their shape during baking. It may have to do with the cocoa butter content but I haven't been able to verify that.
I don't understand why they would specify "Belgian Chocolate" rather than "Chocolate coverture". I haven't noticed a big difference in the melting properties of "Callibaut" (a belgian chocolate) and "Guitard" (an American Chocolate).
I'd worry about running any pure chocolate in a fountain. Chocolate has a very unusual phase diagram. The friction involved in pumping it through the fountain could seed fat crystals and cause the fountain to plug or even erupt. You can add vegetable oil to solve that problem, but I'd probably go with Ghee or Cream instead.
You do need to be a careful if you go with cream. Never add cream to melted chocolate, the water will react with the starches in the chocolate and make a big mess. If you add the melted chocolate slowly to the warm cream, you won't get that problem.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Rabbit, thanks -- going to look up " chocolate coverture." I probably won't be going with any variations like cream, as delicious as that sounds, that aren't specified on the directions.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We used grapeseed oil, since it's one of the oils with basically no flavor. I know it sounds gross, but it thins out the chocolate to make it flow better in the fountain. It tasted great. (We did use high quality milk chocolate, not chocolate chips, though.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I wonder if there is an error in the instructions since I think you would need to add some oil to any kind of melted chocolate before using it in a fountain. Is it possible that the "mixed with canola oil" should have applied to both options a and b?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I haven't seen the instructions, just wrote down what my friend w/ the fountain told me over the phone. I think I'll ask her for brand info and see if I can find out more about it. Thanks all. dkw, I know if KQ were here she'd second your grapeseed oil recommendation!
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Wikipedia seems to agree that coverture chocolate is what's indicated, especially "gourmet Belgian couverture chocolate." So where do I get that? A party/candy making type store?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I were you, I would have it catered rather than trying to figure it out myself.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Or go to a store that sells chocolate fountains -- they often will have cans of pre-mixed fountain chocolate.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I've started using grapeseed oil, just because it was really cheap at TJ's. It smells just like EVOO to me, so I use them interchangeably.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I would just go with reddish-brown water like Willy Wonka.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love grapeseed oil, because it has a high smoke point. When I cook with olive oil, it sets off the smoke alarm. Grapeseed oil doesn't do that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Wikipedia seems to agree that coverture chocolate is what's indicated, especially "gourmet Belgian couverture chocolate." So where do I get that? A party/candy making type store?
If you were in Utah, I'd recommend "Baker's C&C", which is a Bakers supply store. They had a similar store in seattle that specialized in cake decorating and candy making supplies. In Montana, I was able to get the Food Coop to special order 5 kg blocks of Callebaut chocolate for my Christmas chocolate making extravaganza. Trader Joes milk chocolate from Belgium is very likely the same stuff. TJ's sells it in 500 g bars.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Chocolate fountains can be pretty fun (if messy). It is sort of like fondue only not hot. You have skewers with pieces of fruit and cake or marshmallows that you dunk.
Hershey's fountain, and chunks of banana to dip... priceless.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I love grapeseed oil, because it has a high smoke point. When I cook with olive oil, it sets off the smoke alarm. Grapeseed oil doesn't do that.
Yeah, it's really good for searing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bananas are nasty. Strawberries, chunks of pinapple, or orange slices are yummy. And bits of angel food cake.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sun Tzu never fought battles on a forum.
This deserves to be sigged.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Totally on Rabbit's side on this one (which is not surprising that I also find myself on the opposite side from Lisa and Katharina).
Chocolate is a specific thing, much like "beer" and "wine" are. Malt beverages and ciders are not beer, and a "wine cooler" is not wine. If you change around what makes a thing a thing... you end up with a different thing.
You can also call something by a name (e.g. Malibu Rum) and have it not actually be that thing (Malibu is not made with sugar cane, and is therefore not actually rum).
While many Americans equate "chocolate candy" with "chocolate", this is not universally accepted. Many Americans also use the word "soccer" when nearly everyone else in the world calls it "football"... simply because they choose to define "football" as something entirely different.
Using "chocolate" as an umbrella term to cover all things that taste like chocolate (e.g. Lindt bars, Hershey kisses, Bosco syrup, Oreos, chocolate ice cream, etc) is fine for common parlance... but that usage is essentially useless when discussing the relative quality of types of chocolate. You need to start with a base definition, as Rabbit attempted (which was subsequently met with vehement objection).
It's like talking about relative qualities of wines, and having someone jump in talking about Arbor Mist or Sangria (which are wine mixed with other things). Or talking about the quality of beer, and having someone jump in talking about cider or hard lemonade.
White chocolate, dark chocolate, milk chocolate, mint chocolate, etc... are all different things, and are made differently. One may enjoy one or all of them, but comparing them with one another is difficult without starting with a baseline for comparison.
In the beer world, ales differ greatly from lagers, for instance... and wheat beers differ greatly from those made with barley. Comparing a chocolate candy to a pure chocolate would be like comparing a raspberry wheat beer with an imperial stout. One may like the former better than the latter, but there really isn't a basis of comparison as they are made entirely differently.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Back to the chocolate fountain story: I priced some of the pourable chocolate and ended up just using Ghirardelli chocolate chips (mix of milk and semisweet) and oil, which worked just fine and tasted great. Thanks for the feedback. Everyone brought different dippers, everything from frozen cream puffs to strawberries to pretzels. It was fun.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
*revils in the evilness*![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)