On What Constitutes a Sandwich and Schools of Thought on the Subject

...

be Structural Neutral, Ingredient Neutral (Ingredients may contain a wider variety of savory ingredients such as chips, potatoes, or possibly fruits. Examples of Ingredient Neutral foods are the chip butty, the hot dog, and the burrito.) It excludes things with sweet ingredients while including foods which most people would not deem a sandwich, such as the hot dog. The justification of a True Neutral would be that sandwiches are defined by ingredients as well as structure, and while it would be ridiculous to add things such as ice cream to a sandwich, or to call one thing wrapped in another a sandwich, views which define sandwiches too strictly are also undesirable. Personally, my SPIRIN ideas cannot agree with these ones in the slightest, both because the cutoff between Ingredient Neutral and Ingredient Rebel, in this case, seems far too arbitrary to care about, and because I, as a human being, am unwilling to consider a hot dog a sandwich. The idea of a hot dog being a sandwich is almost as ludicrous as the beliefs of the Radical Sandwich Anarchists. No man in good health can logically consider a hotdog a sandwich. The cut in it is in the top, not the side, and it is generally not furnished with a wide variety of other ingredients (and when it is, the hot dog is still considered the only important ingredient, and it generally clashes with the other ingredients. Meanwhile, in other foods that I would define as sandwiches, the meat never dominates too much, and it works in cooperation with the other ingredients. A sandwich should be a cooperative effort by each ingredient, not a war for dominance where each taste tries to become dominant among the others.) Finally, there are the beliefs of the Radical Sandwich Anarchists. Their beliefs are exceedingly liberal, being both Structural Rebels and Ingredient Rebels. To Radical Sandwich Anarchists, any one food enveloped in another food is considered a sandwich. A pop tart, a jelly donut, a sucker with chocolate in the center, or even a baked potato (with enough additional ingredients such as butter, sour cream, bacon, and/or cheese mixed into it, and mostly located in the center of the potato) could be considered a sandwich. This belief is radical and unreasonable. No sane person could consider something such as a pop tart a sandwich. This group embodies the idea of taking standards to their extreme and stretching them past their logical boundaries. Radical Sandwich Anarchists seem to justify their beliefs with the idea that sandwiches are, and can only be, defined by something being encased within something else. This definition is much too far reaching, and cannot be considered a valid one. The actions of Radical Sandwich Anarchists throughout history have been both interesting and extreme, and an entire book could be written about their attempts to instill their crazed beliefs in society. It is

possible to go further in depth on the justifications of various groups and what they believe are

sandwiches, but this paper has been a good primer for further research on the subject, and extending it any further would risk covering too much.

...