> You seem very upset that I'm pointing out a slimy marketing tactic. I think he's objecting to you presumptively calling it a "slimy marketing tactic" to offe

> You seem very upset that I'm pointing out a slimy marketing tactic. I think he's objecting to you presumptively calling it a "slimy marketing tactic" to offer a product that some people clearly do enjoy and are willing to pay for, but which doesn't strictly conform to the legal definition of a specific product category, and which therefore must be labelled as something else. > It's simple - people will think these things are ice cream, Because they are within the "ice cream" category in the general vernacular sense: people are buying these products because they do satisfy their taste for ice cream. They're labelled differently because the labeling regulations are applying hard-and-fast boundaries to fuzzy-edged categories. If you want to have clear, objective rules, you need to set hard boundaries, but that always entails that there will be edge cases that people will debate about, but which will need to be settled on one side of the boundary or the other. If you're going to set technical, quantitative standards for what can be called "ice cream", some products that people regard as ice cream, and consume accordingly, will always end up falling outside that definition.