Well, I’m ready to throw down the towel. It’s 8-7 in favor of it being a candy bar on my Facebook page. Regardless of any other votes that may come through, it seems that my results will echo the results here fairly closely–it’s not like one side or another is pulling crazily away. I thought the “anti candy bar” side would be a clear winner, but it appears I am wrong. So I guess this is a far more contentious issue than I first surmised. Well, whatever the majority decides, I’m happy to go with. (
Well, I’m on the “Yes” side, but I’d be content for the definitive answer to be “sort of.”
What are my other choices?
Fascinating thread, y’all.
Next, let us consider the question of whether we’re more likely to see a candy bar named after Alfred, Lord Tennyson or James Joyce…
The final tally looks like it swung a little bit the other way for me, 10-8 that it’s not a candy bar, but, regardless, it shows a pretty even split.
Yay- we made threadspotting!
Sweet!
And peanut buttery!
Dammit! I just need the 'no’s to be ahead one more time so I can stop reading this thread and all will be right with the world!
Neat! I’m pretty sure a thread I started never has before.
It’s common knowledge that Joyce was called, in more familiar circles, Baby Ruth.
I know I’m being “that guy,” but I just wanted to add that I would see a directly asked survey question to inherently contain consent. It’s the sneakiness of what Facebook did that made it need informed consent.
Anyways, I forgot to give my answer: Enh? I would call it one in some situations and not in others. I guess I slightly lean towards it being a candy bar, mostly due to a lack of any better category. The pieces are too big to fit into the bite-sized category where you put M&Ms, Reeses Pieces, and even mini-cups. I could call them cups, but that leaves then in a category of one.
If this poll had five gradations (definitely yes, leaning yes, maybe, leaning no, definitely no) I’d bet most people in the current “yes” category would be “leaning yes.”
BTW, OP: What’s your opinion on the matter?
Almond Joyce?
Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups are sui generis.
I think we can all agree that they’re similar to candy bars. And there are very few other cup candies. But then, there are a lot of candies which are similar to candy bars and of a unique or near-unique shape. Compare the Cadbury creme egg, or the York peppermint patty.
It is too a candy bar. And I suspect the “No” voters all roll their toilet paper underneath.
EDIT: Could it be mere coincidence that the percentage divide in the answers closely mirrors that in the recent Scottish independece vote do you think?
Exactly. A pack of Reese’s cups fills the same role as a Hershey bar or Butterfinger. People are a little too hung up on trivial matters of shape.
Yeah, I was just kidding about both the consent and the euthanasia part. I hope pulykamell knew that . . .
Well, as I mentioned, it is a matter of function and utility, too, though. The shape of a bar makes it more useful for certain things than a cup shape does. When I want a candy bar, I imagine eating it on a road trip, for example, just holding it by the wrapper in one hand, munching away while holding the wheel with the other. I can easily eat it on a bicycle, or grab it out of my pocket during a hike and eat it without having to break stride, etc. I don’t need two hands to eat it. A Reese’s is more fussy in its method of its chocolate-peanut butter goodness delivery because it is not in a bar shape.
Question again: Where do those Ferraro Rochers or Mon Cheris or chocolate peanut-butter truffles fall on the candy bar scale? The Ferraro Rochers are also sold in the candy bar aisle in my store. If those aren’t candy bars, why aren’t they?
So, to me this isn’t about linguistic pedanticism. I suppose you can call it functional pedanticism, much in the way folks argue that an open-faced sandwich isn’t a sandwich because the function of a sandwich is to facilitate eating by enclosing food between two pieces of bread (or similar starchy substance.)
And they’re wrong there, too.