First, a list of my definitions:
Belong: for something's proper purpose to be located within something specific, or for something to be good on/in something.
Subjective: for something to have no logical reasoning to it, as it cannot have any, and there are therefore no wrong answers.
Objective: for something to have a complete set of logical reasoning behind it, and there is therefore an absolute right answer.
Taste: a person's appeal to certain things (often characterized by subjectivity).
Does pineapple belong on pizza? Internet culture says no. At this point, we have been internet-pressured into either believing, agreeing with, or just saying, that pineapple does not belong on pizza, and that pineapple pizza is an abomination, or is just wrong, or disgusting. Of course, this has no logical validity to it.
There are a few aspects of food specifically that are objective, such as health value, or possible allergies to a particular ingredient. However, first off, pineapple pizza is obviously not healthy. Don't kid yourself, it's pizza. And for allergies, those can vary from person to person. Some people can eat pineapple pizza, some people might not. But just because somebody might be allergic to pineapple doesn't mean somebody else is, therefore, it is invalid to say that somebody else shouldn't eat them. The only valid thing somebody could say is that people who are allergic to pineapple should not be eating pineapple pizza. And, yeah duh. But when it comes to saying that pineapple doesn't even belong on pizza, the implication of that statement is wrong. The implication of that statement says that there is an absolute taste. Somebody's taste who somehow transcends over all others, and thus absolutely decides whether or not a specific set of tastes is right or wrong. This is obviously an incorrect idea.
Your taste in food is subjective. Whether something is healthy or unhealthy, authentic or inauthentic, took ten hours to make or two minutes, they don't provide enough logical reasoning to say that something should objectively taste good or bad. Otherwise, you'd be able to predict exactly whether or not somebody will like something. And sure, there is often general consensus in some things, but it's not perfect. You can merely say it is likely somebody will like or dislike something. But tastes are still subjective, and yet, people tend to treat it as if it is objective. And then, they are somehow shocked when they find out that other people don't have the same tastes as theirs, so they just conclude that that person is flat out wrong and distasteful. When asked why, they will usually have some kind of excuse, like saying that they should like this because they're from this state, or that acidic should never go with savory, among others. But ultimately, these are just ad hoc reasons that never actually address the underlying problem of the matter: all taste is subjective. There is no absolute taste. Not in food, not in video games, not in movies/TV shows, not in people, or anything else. Now, I will admit that there are some characteristics about things like video games, where if there were a video game that was exceptionally violent and horrific, that would be good reason to say that that is not a good game. Or for people who have committed unspeakable crimes, that is obviously a reason to not like someone. But when it comes to food, the only objective thing you can say about food is whether or not it is edible. Moldy bread is objectively bad, because if you were to consume it, you would likely fall ill. But when it comes to whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza, there are no wrong answers. There are no tastes that somebody could have that are objectively right or wrong. So when people treat it as if they are objectively right or wrong, they are setting themselves up for failure, though usually if they have a crowd of people agreeing with them, they can hang on to their cover for now.
Some people might say that acidic foods don't belong with savory foods, and that's why pineapple doesn't belong on pizza. But this is not addressing the underlying problem, it is merely delaying it. There is still the question of why don't acidic foods belong on savory foods. Again, there is still no objective answer to this question. So, saying that acidic foods don't belong with savory foods is just delaying the problem, rather than addressing it.
The odds of the tastes of somebody you know being exactly the same as yours in every aspect is extremely improbable, so you should expect that their tastes will disagree with you in at least one aspect. It shouldn't be surprising at all.
In conclusion: if you like pineapple on pizza, go for it. If you don't like pineapple pizza, don't go for it. But don't think that you can tell somebody that they are wrong for liking pineapple on pizza without realizing the things I have said above. Whether you like it or not, this is the truth about taste in food. And for as ridiculous as some food combinations may seem, they are still fundamentally subjective, and there is no real reason to ridicule someone, say they're wrong, or be surprised at all, when their tastes differ from yours in any way. Just because the internet says it, doesn't mean you have to say it. And if somebody makes fun of you for liking pineapple on pizza, they are wrong.
GG.
Why does it still objectively not belong? If it is objective, that means there is a reason, so you should be able to provide a logical one.
I did not say there is an objective reason that stops me from putting bananas in spaghetti. But that does not mean that now bananas belong on spaghetti. They still don't belong on spaghetti Carbonara by definition and just bc I can mess with my Carbonara and put M&Ms in it doesn’t mean that M&Ms BELONG in Carbonara. I can eat it, enjoy it, shit it out and M&Ms still don’t belong in Carbonara. I don’t really know if it matters that much if they subjectively don’t belong or objectively don’t belong….. they still don’t belong. By the objective standards of what Carbonara is. Every dish has objective standards that we can call a recipe.
You can objectively talk about traditions, history, culture, original recipes and the way it was invented and meant to be eaten and made. The statement “you can only objectively talk about health values” is wrong.
Just because pineapple won’t hurt you doesn’t mean it belongs on whatever you decide to put it on.
But can you still do it even if it doesn’t belong ?
Yes you can.
I specifically stated in my argument that the only objective things you can say about food are their health value, and toxicity. Therefore, poisonous food objectively does not belong on a food that is intended to be consumed.
What if I want poison in my spaghetti Carbonara? Does poison belong in spaghetti?
If you want to put bananas on top of your spaghetti Carbonara, there is no objective reason to say that you are objectively not allowed to do that. Unless it causes physical harm to the body, such as poison.
“I like to put bananas on top of my spaghetti Carbonara, therefore bananas belong on a spaghetti and nobody can tell me they don’t because I like it and I can put it.”
My thoughts are much the same. Can doesn't mean should.
I'm sure con already covered it, but each food type has a definition. Leave a smoothie in the blender too long as it ceases to be a smoothie, but is converted to soup.
My only problem is that there’s multiple questions in this debate. Are you debating that you can just put whatever you like on whatever you like or that pineapple BELONGS on pizza?
Wow you really do like rated stuff do you
Unrated, waste of effort vs reward ratio
"is too vague, subjective, and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it."
Yes, that's the point. I'm arguing for the fact that people have a tendency to take things that are purely subjective, and treat them like they're objective, and then are somehow shocked that other people don't like the same things that they like. They view their tastes as superior, and so, if you don't have their tastes, they will label you as having bad taste, or being flat out wrong. I am here to say that that is a ridiculous thing to say, because it is purely subjective, and also uncontrollable. There are no elements of reason to it, and even the tiny bits of reason that do exist don't make it any more justifiable to ridicule somebody for their tastes.
It's not all set for pro. Pineapple is not available in some parts of the world and some people may be allergic to it. If con is one of the people allergic in a region that doesn't have any than it should be an easy win
“Pineapple belongs on a pizza” is a fair title + definition for “belongs”
“ Pineapple can go on pizza if you want it to” is too vague, subjective and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it