Board 8 > Can it be considered a Sloppy Joe without the bun?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean, I'll concede to it being deconstructed Sloppy Joe's, but it's still Sloppy Joe's.

I never argued that my way is the only way it's acceptable or that most people don't think of it as eaten on a bun. I've just said it should still be considered Sloppy Joe's.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

I mean I never claimed Sloppy Joe's was just the sauce. It's the sauce mixed with the meat.

That's what a meat sauce is, meat and sauce. That's still just a sauce!

---

I mean the Manwich can only comes with the sauce

also is it only cereal when you eat it in a bowl

also is cereal a soup
---

Lopen posted...

I'm just saying food trucks having limited options on what they can serve you doesn't mean that's the only way to eat something. It just means they don't account for fringe options due to space. All you proved is that sloppy joe on the bun is the most popular way of eating it, which no one is arguing against!

This isn't really even a fringe option, though

Like, we don't seem to disagree that if you say "Sloppy Joe," you're referring to a sloppy joe sandwich.

A fringe option would be like "Oh, can I have that on rye?"

"Can I just have the meat in a bowl?" is pretty far beyond fringe option
---

I guarantee you more people eat sloppy joes in a bowl than eat it on goddamn rye lol
---

LeonhartFour posted...

I mean, I'll concede to it being deconstructed Sloppy Joe's, but it's still Sloppy Joe's.

I never argued that my way is the only way it's acceptable or that most people don't think of it as eaten on a bun. I've just said it should still be considered Sloppy Joe's.

While I accept this, what I can't accept is how you're writing it, though

Sloppy Joe's is objectively incorrect
---

Lopen posted...

I guarantee you more people eat sloppy joes in a bowl than eat it on goddamn rye lol

I'd say both are so odd it's not worth comparing, personally
---

who eats Sloppy Joe's on rye

although I did discover someone in my internet searching who makes a Sloppy Joe mixed with a grilled cheese sandwich and it sounds great
---

20% of people voting in this poll voted yes so it's not nearly as fringe as you're claiming

"Ever had a sloppy joe on Rye" would get like 5% with 4.5% of those votes being joke votes.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

I mean the Manwich can only comes with the sauce

also is it only cereal when you eat it in a bowl

also is cereal a soup

Usually you have to manually combine the meat and the sauce to make it, yes. That's still just sauce.

If I got spaghetti and meat sauce and I made too much sauce and not enough noodle, what's left over is not spaghetti on its own.

Cereal is a grain. You usually put milk on it but can eat it dry if you want. It could be a soup, sure.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Sloppy Joe's is objectively incorrect

eh fine I'll concede this much

I don't typically see it written out so I thought it was some sort of possessive but whatever
---

Lopen posted...

20% of people voting in this poll voted yes so it's not nearly as fringe as you're claiming

I errantly voted yes because the poll question is "bun or no bun?" and I'd be willing to bet a significant number of others did the same.
---

Basically, it boils down to the name itself. "Sloppy Joe" is singular, not plural. It's why we say "I'd like a sloppy joe," or "I'd like two sloppy joes."

If "Sloppy Joe" was literally just the name of the meat sauce, it wouldn't be singular, just like how you don't say "I'd like a cereal" or "I'd like a spaghetti." You quantify it via "I'd like a bowl/plate/etc. of"

But if you're just pouring the meat sauce in a bowl, it can no longer be singular because you could just keep pouring meat and at no point do you know when it's two or three sloppy joes.

So I'll accept "deconstructed sloppy joes"

But just know in your heart the truth
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

I voted yes because the poll question is "bun or no bun?" and I'd be willing to bet a significant number of others did the same.

What are you saying yes to there I'm just curious
---

Lopen posted...

Xiahou Shake posted...

I voted yes because the poll question is "bun or no bun?" and I'd be willing to bet a significant number of others did the same.

What are you saying yes to there I'm just curious

"Yes, bun."
---

Lopen posted...

Xiahou Shake posted...

I voted yes because the poll question is "bun or no bun?" and I'd be willing to bet a significant number of others did the same.

What are you saying yes to there I'm just curious

I was slightly confused when I reread the poll earlier because I voted No because of the topic title, but "Bun or no bun?" makes it sound like the poll is "Yes bun or no bun?"
---

HashtagSEP posted...

If "Sloppy Joe" was literally just the name of the meat sauce, it wouldn't be singular, just like how you don't say "I'd like a cereal" or "I'd like a spaghetti." You quantify it via "I'd like a bowl/plate/etc. of"

I mean if I said I'd like a bowl of Sloppy Joes (or Sloppy Joes in a bowl, whichever) you'd know what I was asking for

you might look at me weird but you'd know and you probably wouldn't put the bun in there with it

but who knows you might
---

LeonhartFour posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

If "Sloppy Joe" was literally just the name of the meat sauce, it wouldn't be singular, just like how you don't say "I'd like a cereal" or "I'd like a spaghetti." You quantify it via "I'd like a bowl/plate/etc. of"

I mean if I said I'd like a bowl of Sloppy Joes (or Sloppy Joes in a bowl, whichever) you'd know what I was asking for

you might look at me weird but you'd know and you probably wouldn't put the bun in there with it

but who knows you might

Well, right

But you don't say "I'd like a bowl of spaghettis," or "I'd like a bowl of cereals." You say spaghetti and cereal.

So the fact "Sloppy Joe" has a plural suggests it's meant to be seen as a singular object (the sandwich), not just the meat sauce.

Agree to disagree, I'm just stating my particular viewpoint.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

If "Sloppy Joe" was literally just the name of the meat sauce, it wouldn't be singular, just like how you don't say "I'd like a cereal" or "I'd like a spaghetti." You quantify it via "I'd like a bowl/plate/etc. of"

I mean if I said I'd like a bowl of Sloppy Joes (or Sloppy Joes in a bowl, whichever) you'd know what I was asking for

you might look at me weird but you'd know and you probably wouldn't put the bun in there with it

but who knows you might

I'd break up the bun into chunks and stir it in.
---

mnkboy907 posted...

I'd break up the bun into chunks and stir it in.

I'd take it.
---

I mean if it was me I'd phrase it "give me a sloppy joe but in a bowl" probably. This whole plural thing wouldn't happen.
---

Lopen posted...

I mean if it was me I'd phrase it "give me a sloppy joe but in a bowl" probably. This whole plural thing wouldn't happen.

Right, but it does exist, and one of the initial arguments being made was that the meat sauce is what's called "sloppy joe," not the sandwich itself, which the name kinda debunks.
---

I'm not really making that argument I'm just saying you can eat it in a bowl and still identify it as a sloppy joe and not something else. If you wanna say sloppy joe is technically the name of the sandwich first and foremost I won't argue with you cause you're not wrong, my disagreement is just whether the bun is integral to identifying it as a sloppy joe.

Like the reaction I'd expect to get to "I eat my sloppy joe in a bowl!!!" is "you're weird" not "that's not a sloppy joe." BLT minus bread in a bowl is a crappy salad.

Let's be honest only real reason I came out of the woodwork here was the bad BLT and Spaghetti comparisons
---

Lopen posted...

A food truck that serves little bowls of egg salad

please look forward to my next business venture

---

LeonhartFour posted...

also is cereal a soup

yes

is a bao a sandwich?
---

Emeraldegg posted...

Yeah I don't think it can be, the meaning behind it I assume is that it's a sloppy sandwich, once it's in a bowl it's contained and therefore there's nothing "sloppy" about it

This topic should have been over after the first post

Sloppy Joes in a bowl = not sloppy

At best you're eating Joe

---

Any reason you are denying yourself the pleasure bread provides?
---

LeonhartFour posted...

I mean if I said I'd like a bowl of Sloppy Joes (or Sloppy Joes in a bowl, whichever) you'd know what I was asking for

you might look at me weird but you'd know and you probably wouldn't put the bun in there with it

but who knows you might

If you said you'd like "Sloppy Joes in a bowl" I'd assemble the sandwiches and then serve them in a bowl instead of on a plate. I'd think it was odd you wanted your sandwiches in a bowl, but you do you.

Now if you phrased it as "a bowl of Sloppy Joes" I might be uncertain and ask you to clarify.
---

Is there a minimum amount of batter required to be fried before you can call it a pancake?

LeonhartFour posted...

you might look at me weird but you'd know and you probably wouldn't put the bun in there with it

I mean, anyone who gives you this should be ashamed of themselves anyway.
---

Mitochondriagon posted...

Any reason you are denying yourself the pleasure bread provides?

I love bread as much as the next guy, but I prefer Sloppy Joes this way.
---

also I linked my girlfriend to this topic and she had a good laugh at my expense
---

LeonhartFour posted...

also I linked my girlfriend to this topic and she had a good laugh at my expense

Alls well that ends well.

---

Is there a minimun quantity of baked ingredients for a cake to be a cake?

Okay, but what if we compress and freeze the sloppy joe filling into a patty so it's not sloppy? Is it still sloppy joe?
---

Raka_Putra posted...

Okay, but what if we compress and freeze the sloppy joe filling into a patty so it's not sloppy? Is it still sloppy joe?

In the same way ice is still technically water, sure. I assume it would need to be thawed and become sloppy again to be eaten though

---

Can we at least all agree that someone who eats a bowl of sloppy joe with no bread is a weirdo?
---

Lopen posted...

But I can request it in a bowl without it being completely absurd

Also I gotta lol at this statement. Because people would definitely look at you and think that's absurd.
---

Waluigi1 posted...

Can we at least all agree that someone who eats a bowl of sloppy joe with no bread is a weirdo?

I admitted as much in the opening post...!
---

Waluigi1 posted...

Because people would definitely look at you and think that's absurd.

Just depends. I usually eat them on buns but I wouldn't even blink if someone asked for in a bowl.

Waluigi1 posted...

Can we at least all agree that someone who eats a bowl of sloppy joe with no bread is a weirdo?

If that's your whole meal, it's kinda weird. If you have some kind of side dish (fries, baked potato, corn) then it's good.
---

the real power move would be eating it in a bowl with the bread on top

---

I definitely don't eat it by itself.
---

Gonna start calling a sloppy Joe without a bun as a sloppy Allen thanks for literally the first thing ever leonhart4
---

Okay, I'm convinced

If I eat a pile of ham in a bowl I can call it a ham sandwich
---

banananor posted...

Okay, I'm convinced

If I eat a pile of ham in a bowl I can call it a ham sandwich

this is not what I was arguing at all
---

LeonhartFour posted...

also is cereal a soup

No, it's a stew.

Lopen posted...

"Ever had a sloppy joe on Rye" would get like 5% with 4.5% of those votes being joke votes.

To be pedantic, your wording implies that only 10% of 'yes' votes for sloppy joe on rye would be joke votes.

Also, I just want to say that this is a quality Board 8 topic that has directly granted me a good many laughs.
---

banananor posted...

Okay, I'm convinced

If I eat a pile of ham in a bowl I can call it a ham sandwich

Ham is one ingredient, also youre adding the word sandwich to the bowl.

If you put, say, salami, pepperoni, and provolone (or whatever you put on an Italian sub) in a bowl, would it be wrong to call it an Italian Bowl?
---

Weirdly this topic is the first time I've ever heard people call it a sloppy joe. My family has always referred to them as sloppy joes, and it's always specifically been in reference to the meat/stuff you put in the sandwich.

I've also eaten it out of a bowl plenty of times, so there's that.

---

VintageGin posted...

My family has always referred to them as sloppy joes, and it's always specifically been in reference to the meat/stuff you put in the sandwich.

But you seem to have just instinctively referred to "sloppy joes" as "them," which is plural, which you can't really refer to the meat/sauce that way.

Like, you'd never say "Yeah, I have a pot of them" referring to a pot of soup.

You would say "Yeah, I have a bunch of them" referring to sandwiches.

I'm gonna count this as a half point for our side thank you sir for your contribution
---