[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 147 KB, 700x700, healthy-eating-pyramid-700-link.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6128348 No.6128348 [Reply] [Original]

whats the best dominos pizza?

>> No.6128350

the one you don't have to eat

>> No.6128351

pepperoni
sausage
red peppers
onions
grilled chicken
parmesan

>> No.6128392

>>6128350
What's better pizza that's just as fast you can eat at home?

>> No.6128395

>>6128351
>red instead of jalapenos

>> No.6128399

pan
2x sausage
feta
light sauce
well done bake

>> No.6128420
File: 34 KB, 680x680, 1299827572337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6128420

>>6128395
>not liking sweet peppers
>having to ruin everything you eat with muh spice
i bet you ruin your pizza with hot sauce too

>> No.6128427
File: 41 KB, 625x626, 1396933450575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6128427

>>6128348
>that picture

>> No.6128436

>>6128348
Dominos don't sell pizza, just tomato and cheese bread.

>> No.6128441

>>6128420
>dominos jalapenos
>spicy

>> No.6128446

>>6128427
>slobbishly disagreeing with one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world

>> No.6128451

>>6128436
what's the difference?

>> No.6128459

>>6128446
>muh appealing to authority

>> No.6128508

>>6128459
Appealing to authority is not a fallacious argument. We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so.

>> No.6128526

>>6128508
It's a logical fallacy, anon. And unlike you I have an informed opinion on the subject. That image represents and extremely dumbed down and moderated view on nutrition. These sorts of things are heavily skewed by public opinion and what they think people are willing to accept, it's not a pinnacle of nutrition knowledge and in fact peddles misinformation and is altogether rather dumb.

>> No.6128536

>>6128526
>It's a logical fallacy, anon

"Appeal to authority" is not a fallacy when the appeal is to an actual recognised authority. For example if you were in a room with Einstein and someone argued with you about Special Relativity, it would not be fallacious to ask Einstein to back you up, as he is the recognised authority.

>> No.6128550

Every pizza at Dominos sucks dick except for the Philly Cheese Steak pizza. That shit is delicious.

>> No.6128564

>>6128536
>"Appeal to authority" is not a fallacy when the appeal is to an actual recognised authority
yeah it is

>> No.6128567

When I got to fazolis

>> No.6128572

>>6128564

its not

i know thats what /pol/ told you, but we're talking about reality

>> No.6128582

>>6128564
Nope, sorry. It's only a fallacy if the argument is accepted at face value; if the authority is the primary source AND the evidence supports their position, there's no fallacy. Like I said; Einstein would be, undeniably, an authority on Special Relativity.

There's also the False Authority ("Jenny McCarthy says vaccination causes autism").

>> No.6128586

>>6128572
haha look it up man. it's a fallacy either way because saying someone said something is a shit argument.

>> No.6128591

>>6128586

>providing sources is a shit argument

fuck off back to your containment board

>> No.6128596

>>6128586
>someone said something

This is science, not the playground. "Someone said something" is indeed not a basis for an argument. "Someone with a background in the field has conducted a study and their data indicates something" is, particularly when it's followed up with "...and some other people with an background in the field have looked into it and their data agrees with something".

The drunk guy at the bar is not a more valid authority on Special Relativity and Einstein. That however IS a fallacy, though.

>> No.6128599

>>6128582
and einstein could make a great argument for anything pertaining to the subject, but "einstein said" in and of itself is a shit argument. it's a non argument, it's not even an argument, it's a citation, it's a source. the argument is the argument, not the title of the source

>Jenny McCarthy says vaccination causes autism
man, you must be vaccinated out the ass

>> No.6128601

>>6128596
so you're agreeing with me, lmao

>> No.6128603

>>6128599
>"einstein said" in and of itself is a shit argument

Einstein said "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared".

See if you can figure out your mistake.

>> No.6128622

>>6128603
>starts with a logical fallacy
>then tries to get me to make his arguments for him
haha, nice try mate

>> No.6128625
File: 81 KB, 1280x1024, white-egg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6128625

>> No.6128890

>>6128564
No, that fallacy only rings true under the circumstance that one is using the position of a "higher authority" to prove an argument. By nature, the presumption is that the authority does not actually have experience pertinent in the field as to be the foremost.

Thus if there was a field of study where an authority was the foremost authority in which innovations and discoveries within that field could be attributed to that "authority," it would not be a logical fallacy to use their data / argument / position as evidence or a point of contention.