El Goonish ShiVe: Look! Squirrel!

[HorizonWalker]

And we do know Abraham thought for a moment that Adrian losing his sword was sufficient to remove him as a threat, before remembering he was also a wizard. So that's (weak) evidence of the possibility of non-wizard elves.

Eh. If we take it as a given that all elves are wizards, then that scene is instead strong evidence that Abraham is an idiot. Which we can definitely take as a given, seeing as "Abraham is an idiot" is his enduring legacy, according to Raven, and also he does a lot of not particularly smart things.

[Lizard Lord]

In regards to the commentary: What I want to know is how does one even argue against a hamburger qualifying as a sandwich? What definition of sandwich could one use where a hamburger wouldn't qualify?

[Radar]

In regards to the commentary: What I want to know is how does one even argue against a hamburger qualifying as a sandwich? What definition of sandwich could one use where a hamburger wouldn't qualify?

While I would not ascribe to this line of thought, I guess one could argue like this: if someone would want a burger, they will ask for a burger. If someone wants a sandwich other then a burger, they will ask for a sandwich and it will be understandable that they do not want a burger.

This idea would exclude all named types of sandwiches from the envelope term "sandwich" on the grounds of how that word would be understood in a typical use. There is some logic to it, but I do not agree with it.

[Windscion]

Opinion: Elf ears are a good look on Diane.

[Fyraltari]

Elf ears are good look on everybody.

Also when did Diane's ears get back to normal?

[Lissou]

I think they were only pointy during the spell, which allowed her to taste it, but as soon as the spell was over they were normal again.

[Celestia]

In regards to the commentary: What I want to know is how does one even argue against a hamburger qualifying as a sandwich? What definition of sandwich could one use where a hamburger wouldn't qualify?

There are some people who subscribe to a super restrictive definition of "sandwich" that only applies to sandwiches made specifically with sliced bread. Buns, rolls, and such don't count. This is quite ridiculous, though, as it means sub sandwiches aren't sandwiches, and what else would you call them, anyways?

[Mystic Muse]

A hamburger is a sandwich. Yes. But if you call it a sandwich in any context but talking about what category it falls under, people will be rightfully confused.

[Rater202]

A hamburger is a sandwich. Yes. But if you call it a sandwich in any context but talking about what category it falls under, people will be rightfully confused.

If you wanna get super pedantic: Technically, hamburger refers to the meat patty, not the assembled product.

Hamburger is a nickname for Hamburg steak(much the same way that Frankfurt sausages are commonly called frankfurters.)

The first modern "hamburger" was a hamburg steak served on toast with mustard and was sold as a "hamburger sandwich."

So, to be an etymology troll for a bit, a hamburger is not a sandwich but can be served as part of one...

Or, to go even further, Hamburg steak wasn't invented in Hamburg. They were just the first people to eat it cooked instead of eating their lumps of minced beef, onions, and spices raw.

It was properly invented by the Russians, who called it "steak tartar" after the Tartars, the Russian names for the Mongols, who would instead of cooking beef over a fire wrap it up and put it under their saddles. A long day of hard riding, numbing up and down, combined with the pressure of the riders weight above it and the combined body heats of the horse and rider would crush the meat flat and make it super tender, which would then be eaten as is.

So, technically, "Hamburger's" don't exist: What you are eating is a sandwich composed of (over)cooked steak tartar on a bun.

[Fyraltari]

Pretty sure steak tartar is made of raw meat.

[Rater202]

Pretty sure steak tartar is made of raw meat.

Yes., this is something I noted.

Hence the qualifier "cooked" indicating that the steak tartar on the sandwich is not the typically served kind.

Because literally the only difference between hamburg steak, the actual "hamburger" in the hamburger, and steak tartar is the process of cooking it and all evidence suggests that hamburg steak was variation of tartar rather than independently developed.

So now my joke is explained, and thus dead.

[Kish]

In regards to the commentary: What I want to know is how does one even argue against a hamburger qualifying as a sandwich? What definition of sandwich could one use where a hamburger wouldn't qualify?

"Will you hand me that sandwich?"

[Gez]

It's the same thing with colors: suppose there's a green ball and an orange ball on a table. Is there a red ball? Pedants could argue that "orange is a shade of red, so yes"; but spontaneously the answer most people would say would be "no".

What is a color and what is just a shade of a color is extremely language-dependent. In some languages, blue and green are the same basic colors. In others, there may be different basic colors for light blue and dark blue. And is teal a shade of blue or a shade of green?

In the same way that a color is a basic color instead of being merely a specific shade of a different basic color, a recipe is a recipe instead of being a variant of a recipe if people agree it is one. So yeah, you can go "technically, a stuffed turkey is a sandwich" if you think it makes you look clever, but really, no, hot dogs and hamburgers are not sandwiches because they are hot dogs and hamburgers.

[Radar]

Why does that logic line up with food and colors, but not for animals? A flying fox is a bat. The koala bear is a marsupial. An ant lion is neither of those things. So on and so forth.

Because there is a difference between common language, which indeed can be justifiably defined by common use of the words, and formal classification of animals. One is more pliable than the other. Also notable is that the terms like marsupial were created specifically to be those umbrela words which cover a whole group of animals based on a common set of characteristics or common ancestry.

With sandwich the ambiguity also lies in that it is both an umbrela term and a specific term due to its loose definition.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

There was also the period (WWI, specifically) during which the U.S. tried to rebrand hamburgers as "Liberty Sandwiches" to sound more American. Whether the fact that they tried is evidence for them being sandwiches, or their miserable failure is evidence against, is left to the discretion of the audience.

[Vinyadan]

Because there is a difference between common language, which indeed can be justifiably defined by common use of the words, and formal classification of animals. One is more pliable than the other. Also notable is that the terms like marsupial were created specifically to be those umbrela words which cover a whole group of animals based on a common set of characteristics or common ancestry.

With sandwich the ambiguity also lies in that it is both an umbrela term and a specific term due to its loose definition.

I think it works with animals, too. "Birds are dinosaurs" is scientifically correct, but it's unusual to ask "what's the racket with the dinosaurs?"

The short version, I think, is that languages have varieties. It's the usual joke, "is tomato a fruit or a vegetable?". "Fruit" and "vegetable" generally to not exclude each other (cucumbers, zucchini, aubergine...), but "fruit" has a specific, restrictive meaning in culinary parlance.

So there might be a variety of language in which "sandwich" comprises hamburgers and hot dogs. For example, one could talk about an aggregated "sandwich economy" that comprises sandwiches, hot dogs, and hamburgers. I haven't really heard it used this way, however.

[Radar]

I think it works with animals, too. "Birds are dinosaurs" is scientifically correct, but it's unusual to ask "what's the racket with the dinosaurs?"

The short version, I think, is that languages have varieties. It's the usual joke, "is tomato a fruit or a vegetable?". "Fruit" and "vegetable" generally to not exclude each other (cucumbers, zucchini, aubergine...), but "fruit" has a specific, restrictive meaning in culinary parlance.

So there might be a variety of language in which "sandwich" comprises hamburgers and hot dogs. For example, one could talk about an aggregated "sandwich economy" that comprises sandwiches, hot dogs, and hamburgers. I haven't really heard it used this way, however.

That is indeed correct although instead of calling those cases varieties I would simply say that the same words can be used in a different context or that there are slangs related to various fields (biology, physics, art, baking, farming and so on) that define the same words differently.

[Windscion]

The more we learn about Noriko, the higher my opinion of Nanase's mother. Clearly her pressure on Nanase to be a homemaker relates to Noriko's abdication.

Edit to add: Also, the fact that Nanase looks like Noriko (https://www.egscomics.com/comic/2013-07-11) probably makes it fresher for Mrs Kitsune.

[Qwertystop]

The more we learn about Noriko, the higher my opinion of Nanase's mother. Clearly her pressure on Nanase to be a homemaker relates to Noriko's abdication.

Edit to add: Also, the fact that Nanase looks like Noriko (https://www.egscomics.com/comic/2013-07-11) probably makes it fresher for Mrs Kitsune.

Technically speaking, we don't know that Noriko made the mirror. Highly suggested, but it's possible that, for example, this was something Mrs. Kitsune mage when she was younger. Note that Mrs. Kitsune is relatively heavy, and the page with exposition by the mirror-maker suggests that the mirror's maker intended to giving up on having a magic-saving device by instead just eating more. If that shift in diet stuck as a habit after she stopped magic-ing... it fits. And Pandora said that Noriko was trained by Adrian, and that Mrs. Kitsune didn't apply herself to getting good at magic; the mirror was meant to save magic and time, and the mirror's maker doesn't want to talk to Adrian.

Not guaranteed, of course, but at least vaguely plausible. Either way leads to bringing in a character who we know very little about. The main question if it's Mrs. Kitsune would be how the mirror ended up in the Verres basement.

[Rater202]

I'm gonna disagree and say that this doesn't justify Mama Kitsune's bad mothering.

It explains it, but doing it to overcompensate for Noriko's bad mothering doesn't justify any of Mama Kitsune's behavior any more than being a generic Tiger Mom does.

Especially not the "pushing Nanase to excel academically and go to college when she is literally doing the best someone could possibly be doing when she doesn't intend for Nanase to do anything but be a housewife" thing or the "deliberately pushing Anase's buttons so that Nanase will get mad and she can ignore her daughter's perfectly valid arguments out of hand instead of treating her daughter like a human being" thing.


And in general planning Nanase's life for her without her input. It's honestly non of Mama Kitsune's business: It's Nanase's life if she wants to live on the beach and walk around naked... There's a cookie for anyone who gets this referance.

[Windscion]

I'm gonna disagree and say that this doesn't justify Mama Kitsune's bad mothering.

Eh, I don't mean this makes her right. I guess what I mean is that it makes her less two-dimensional. More like a person, less like a caricature.

I do, however, disagree about Nanase's life being none of Mama Bear's business. It is very much her legitimate concern that someone she loves might ruin their life in a way they've seen before. It is the heavy-handed approach that is neither helpful not justified.

[Rater202]

I do, however, disagree about Nanase's life being none of Mama Bear's business. It is very much her legitimate concern that someone she loves might ruin their life in a way they've seen before. It is the heavy-handed approach that is neither helpful not justified.

1: It's Nanase's life to ruin

2: Mama Kitsune's parenting methods are the kind of thing that leave people needing years of therapy and their parents wondering why their children never call them.

Go to China or Japan: This kind of parenting and the attendant pressure to succeed is responsible for a ridiculously high suicide rate among teenagers in both countries.

In short, Mama Kitsune is, intentionally or not, actively doing things that may ruin Nanase's life.

3: Mama Kitsune is assuming that Noriko's abandoning of her family(and possibly her reckless behavior) is the result on being a career woman is just Mama Kitsune adhering to and perpetuating the stereotype that there are separate spheres of influence for Men and Women and that one cannot do the work that is arbitrarily assigned to the other, when the truth is the number of tasks that men can't do but women can and vice versa can be counted on one hand and none of them are important for this kind of discussion(and even then this is only taking Cisgender people into account. Once trans and fluid people are added to the mix it becomes a case of there being distinction at all)

At best, Mama Kitsune is an ignorant person grasping at straws for why her sister was such a crap person instead of just admitting that her sister is a crap person. At worst, Mama Kitsune is what is a female misogynist.

Considering that her homophobia hasn't been addressed: She's cited as having called homosexual relationships disgusting and she dismisses Nanase's attraction to Ellen as a "phase" or "dalliance" it's not looking good for her in this department.

[Taevyr]

Concerning mama kitsune: I strongly doubt she has bad intentions, and considering the cultural influence she's had and seeing the effect of Tedd's mother abandoning her son, I can understand why the combination would push her to be so strict with Nanase, even if I don't agree with it. Nanase has immense potential, and I can certainly understand why she'd want Nanase to reach that potential. And as mama kitsune might see her sister's abandonment of Tedd as being due to a lack of potential, I can understand why she fears Nanase might do the same if she isn't taught well. Though a simple, honest talk with her daughter would be way more effective and far less restrictive than what she's doing now.

The way she treats Nanase's sexuality can't be excused, though.

[Rater202]

Concerning mama kitsune: I strongly doubt she has bad intentions

Of course she doesn't.

The majority of abusive parents think that their abuse is necessary for their children to grow up "right."

And make no mistake: Mama Kitsune's parenting methods are abusive. Nanase would be fully within her rights to move ou and never come back, if she didn't have a little sister who'd be on th receiving end of Mama Kitsune's behavior if Nanase left.

They are abuse just as much as if she sent Nanase to a conversion therapy camp upon finding out she was a lesbian or if she was actively hitting Ananse for "back talk" instead of merely ending the argument without conceding defeat and revoking Nanase's desert priveledges.

Nanase's supposedly stopped caring about her mother's disapproval, but she continues to allow her mother to dominate conversations and caves under minor threats.

She's never going to have a healthy relationship with her mother unless and until she confronts Mama Kitsune and refuses to let Mama Kitsune control the argument. Either they'll work things out, or Mama Kitsune will prove herself a Toxic person who Nanase needs to drop like it's hot.

Of course, there's the "I know you know about magic and have been keeping it a secret from me" thing so I doubt it'll just be one conversation.

[Kish]

Rater is right. And honestly, the suggestion that Nanase's mother's treatment of her is affected by Nanase physically resembling Noriko doesn't make her better--it makes her worse.

Count the interactions she has with her daughter where she's actually even treating her like a person, rather than like a commodity that exists for the benefit of other people.

Now, take out the ones where Nanase was actually lying in a hospital bed at the time...and how many do you have left?

[CrypticUnhlpfl]

Well that got philosophical.

[Celestia]

Well that got philosophical.

It's quite a good message.

[Windscion]

Susan is smarter than I am.

[CrypticUnhlpfl]

It's quite a good message.

Oh definitely.

Though with Shive at the helm it's even odds whether it lands with Grace, it fails but Grace gives in anyway for a totally unrelated reason (see: Susan meeting Diane), or it fails and plenty more hijinks are required.

Anyone recall how this went in the game?

[Maat Mons]

Oh, hey, we have an EGS thread. I never knew. I'm now going to chip in my thoughts on some of the things discussed in the laste page of this thread.

I would consider both hamburgers and hotdogs to be sandwiches, though I wouldn't ordinarily call them that. I also beleive open-faced sandwiches are sandwiches. But I've seen it argued, more than once, that hot dogs and open-faced sandwiches are not, in fact sandwiches. The definition being used there also, aparently, rules out hoadies unless they're the kind where gouge out the top of the bread then add it back later.

On an unrelated note, cheesecake is a pie, not a cake.

I'm told that, in Japan, a hamburger (on a bun) is called "hanbaga," and a hamburg steak is called "hanbagu." ... Or maybe not, because I've heard some people claim that if it has breadcrumbs in it, it's not a hamburg steak, it's a salsbury steak. And the Japanese "hanbagu" does normally have bread crumbs in it.

I choose to treat "hamburg steak" and "salsbury steak" as synonyms.

The reason I was reading up on this is that I watched Attack on Titan: Junior High, and I really wanted to know what the heck "cheeburgs" were. I guess they're either cheeseburgers, or salsbury steaks with cheese melted on top (and no gravy).

Japan also has noodle sandwiches, though they call it "yakisoba pan."

I wanted a cookie, so I looked up the reference. Not one of the Muppet movies I've seen. You know, out of all the Muppet movies I've watched, I think Muppet Treasure Island is the only I'd give a better rating than "okay."