Is the product sold by Dairy Queen fit to be called "Ice Cream"?

i'll stay with my point that with some people it is far more difficult to carry on a conversagion than it is with others no matter the setting or familiarity of all parties as regards the subject. many of these difficult ones simply employ straw man by exacting a premise that does not exist. they do this by changing words of their apponent or confusing COMMON definitions of everyday words or confusing the issue needlessly with symantics. it happens among two "science minded" people, it happens among christians, it happens among spiritualists, it happens among farmers, it happens among any group who would be familiar with common words used within that discipline. some confuse the issue when they can no longer conjure a coginitive thought to support their position on the issue. they feel that drawing attention away from their leaky argument they will plug the leak temporarily. it never works of course so others don't stoop to such ineffective debate stregies. the latter i find easier to exchange views with and i can learn from their points of view. the former i avoid.

Metal wrote:



That depends upon what constitutes "Ice Cream", the purpose of the label, and how particular the reader is.

In instances such as this, is there any loss or errancy in meaning or understanding which makes an appreciable difference?

Well, I hate to argue semantics but it is not the reader who is of concern; it is the eater. Blended dairy whey with emulsifiers, sugar, vegetable fat and water do not create the essence of "cream", iced or not. The errancy would appear to fall more toward the purveyor (manufacturer?, franchiser?, parent company?) for knowingly using descriptive terms describing products with alluring characteristics of high quality products (ergo cream), yet in actuality providing low cost artificial substitutes.

Semantics in advertising goes beyond published ads and signs. We use creamlike descriptive terms to sell ourselves to the opposite sex, employers, and many others.

I saw the term "laymen" used in a thread the other day. Semantically speaking, the syntax, usage, and implied meaning of the word indicated the writer was not a layman, while making claims that were not only incorrect but incorrectly stating "facts" that even laymen with casual research could easily refute.

Perhaps the cold truth is that laymen are not the cream? Or perhaps the claimer of non-laymanship is falsely presenting himself as cream of the crop when, in actuality, he is just a low fat substitute.

Only some Dairy Queens serve that half whip cream half milk cream stuff. There is one here that is the only one I will go to that serves real ice cream.

According to Dairy Queen ... "Dairies who make our soft serve must meet our rigorous standards to ensure you receive only the highest-quality product. And at 35 calories per fluid ounce, it's the only way to treat yourself right. Dairy Queen soft serve is a delicious and nutritious reduced fat ice cream containing the following ingredients, Milkfat and Nonfat Milk, Sugar, Corn Syrup, vanilla flavoring, and stabilizers."

Is this real? semantically speaking of course. We used to make ice cream as a kid. We never had any stabilizers of which I was aware.

LOL well I know one Dairy Queen that doesn't use that recipee.

Actually if you had any manners you let it go by with out comment .

Metal wrote:




Good points! I had not considered some of those aspects. My focus was on meaning and understanding moreso than a blatant mislabeling.

And you, how would you have responded if you had any manners?

Which brings up another point. Semantically speaking, if someone honestly tells you he is feeding you stabilizers in the form of ice cream, what the hell does that mean? He is telling you the truth, but how can the truth exist without any real knowledge of what a stabilizer is made from or does to your body? Is it even food? Is it one ingredient or many? What would "ice cream" look like without stabilizers? They don't keep it long enough for spoilage so it must control the existence of this alien material in this universe perhaps? Perhaps it could bond to the fat in our bodies and flash out of existence taking a few pounds with them? Could there be anti-fat ice cream?

Hey I'm trying to avoid eating ice cream and you guy are making me want some. Cut it out.

Hey Baby! Wanna go out for some coffee and stabilizers?

What is it in the product that needs stabilized?

the petrochemicals

take some of that powdered coffee creamer

light your handy bic lighter and sprinkle a bit of the creamer over the lighter

be careful the fireball doesn't singe all the hair off your hand

Ah, child hood memories! Its due to surface area - many oxidizable (not a word) materials which we don't normally think of as 'combustible' will do this when they are finely powered and dispersed in the air like this. I think even some metals will.

As far as 'ice cream', its been a long time since I took the matter seriously, partly because its not normally part of my diet and mostly because I think this is symptomatic of our whole food industry. Unless we pass laws forbidding it, food companies will complete redefine any word they want and the consumers will let them get away with it.

Thankfully, we at least have a law forbidding people from using the word 'juice' when referring directly to fruit flavored sugar-water. These are called 'drinks' and 'punches' and such and might even say "Made with real fruit juice" or "contains real fruit juice" (as in 10%), but they can't be directly claimed to be fruit juice.

And yet, I've known many people who call the orange colored sugar water drink "orange juice". (sigh)

We think of the fumes from a petrochemical plant as being possibly explosive but the dust from a wheat flour mill or a rice storage silo is even more explosive. These finely powdered hydrocarbons burn in an explosive way that have killed many people all over the country for many years. All you need to make an explosive mixture is to mix them with air.

From the people who sell it (carrageenan is an ice cream stabilizer):

"Carrageenan is a seaweed extract common in the Atlantic Ocean near Britain, Continental Europe and North America.

Things like liquids and cheese can be even more problematic, because their natural inclination is to separate, foam, melt, precipitate, et cetera, especially after they bounce down the road for a thousand miles.

That's why many foods contain chemicals known as gums. Two gums that are pretty familiar are gelatin and corn starch. If you look at processed food, you see all sorts of other gums like carrageenan, xanthan gum, cellulose gum, locust bean gum, agar, and so on. Food scientists (not cooks -- food scientists make processed foods) use these substances for four main reasons:

1. They thicken things: Ice cream, marshmallow fluff, pancake syrup, etc., all benefit from thickening.
2. They emulsify things: They help liquids to stay mixed together without separating.
3. They change the texture: Generally, a gum will make something thicker or chewier.
4. They stabilize crystals: A gum might help prevent sugar or ice from crystallizing.

These are all handy capabilities when making food products that have to look good for several months after trucking them across the country. The reason why a normal cook usually does not need to use things like carrageenan or xanthan gum is because the food a normal cook makes gets eaten quickly and is not mistreated. A cook can also use less expensive things like gelatin, flour or eggs because the time span between cooking and consumption is so short.

Carrageenan, by the way, is a seaweed extract. This particular type of seaweed is common in the Atlantic Ocean near Britain, Continental Europe and North America. You boil the seaweed to extract the carrageenan. In that sense, carrageenan is completely "natural" -- it's not much different from tomato paste in its creation."

However, semantically speaking of course:

"STOMACH ACHES CAUSED BY CARRAGEENAN

Some folks can eat just about anything. Some people might
have no problem producing a tall glass of homemade soymilk,
then converting it to chocolate milk by adding the
following ingredients: Three teaspoons of sugar. One
teaspoon of chocolate powder. Two tablespoons of Vaseline
petroleum jelly. The Vaseline might produce gastric
distress, and the soymilk drinkers would erroneously
conclude that they are "allergic" to soy. Some people
do not experience gastric discomfort caused by the
Vaseline-like food additive, carrageenan. Many people do.

Carrageenan is a commonly used food additive that is
extracted from red seaweed by using powerful alkali
solvents. These solvents would remove the tissues
and skin from your hands as readily as would any acid."

And of course the next stop on the semantic voyage:

"Carrageenan™ Personal Lubricant: For the best ever

Women across the nation are saying Carrageenan™ personal lubricant is "most like me." When it’s time to slip into sexy there's no better alternative, natural or synthetic, than Carrageenan.

Carrageenan, the key ingredient in Carrageenan™ personal lubricant, is 100% natural and derived from ocean plant life while other leading brands use silicone or propylene glycol. A team of scientists formulated Carrageenan™ with women's health as the #1 priority."

You scream, I scream, we all scream for carrageeean!

Personal semantic pet peeve: the word "comprise".

Its rarely used correctly, and this irritates me. It seems like no one knows what this word means, and many use it as if they do. Unlike other words that are adapted, nothing is gained by abusing this word (there is no 'hole' in our language being filled...). Plus, people are using it for the exact opposite of what it means - they often mean 'compose'... we already have the word compose, thank you.

It reminds me of 'irregardless', but thats doesn't bother me, it just amuses me to no end. I'm giggling right now. Hey, lets add another syllable, use the word in exactly the opposite of its meaning, and somehow think we sound smarter for doing so. Lets utilize that paradigm.

Oh, and it looks like, as usual, the majority rules and logic loses - apparently some dictionaries suggest that 'irregardless' means the same as 'regardless'.

Well what could it mean.

Regard
Regardless
Irregardless?? WTF mate.