4 ms·
It's not, and I never said that it was; quite the opposite actually. I said that it's odd that these things are written in law seems as we already have laws th
by Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
It's not, and I never said that it was; quite the opposite actually.
I said that it's odd that these things are written in law seems as we already have laws that cover this more broadly. Attempting to maintain in written law explicit definitions of every food that humans can fathom, and how they are presently produced, is clearly untenable.
- torstenvl 8y agoSeems pretty clearly tenable to me. It is, in fact, being tened. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y agoReally? You're genuinely arguing that every single edible substance and combination thereof ought to be recorded in written law?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 8y agoNo. I didn't argue that. Happy to keep talking if you want to respond to what I actually did say.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y agoMy apologies, perhaps you need to elaborate on what you meant when you wrote: > Seems pretty clearly tenable to me. It is, in fact, being tened. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in response to: > Attempting to maintain in written law explicit definitions of every food that humans can fathom, and how they are presently produced, is clearly untenable.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wbl 8y agoIf you have a vauger law you get all sorts of arguments that "well, cheddar doesn't have to be cheddared" and "10% meat is enough in meat sauce" etc, etc.