This is a potato salad. Prove me wrong.

>>9138362
>t. dumbass

>>9138365
Your reply is irrelevant.

>>9138367
Yet there you are, replying to it, making it relevant.

>>9138385
It would be relevant if he addressed the question, rather than resorting to an ad hominem attack, like you would expect from a typical meat eater.

sage this stupid shit

>>9138435
gladly

>>9138392
I'm not just a meat eater I'm fascist, racist and masochist too you scum.

These are julienned potatos.

cooked potatoes > check
salad dressing > check
culinary-school-inspired serving thing made of paper > check

>>9138362
No mayonnaise
Checkmate, atheist

>>9138548
since when is ketchup considered a salad dressing

>>9138572
>what is vinagrette
>what is french
>what is thousand island

what are those but ketchup-based dressings?

>>9138578
None of those are ketchup based.

File: IMG_1434.jpg (30KB, 220x300px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 220x300px

>>9138578
>ketchup based
Retard.

File: ketsup.png (95KB, 464x331px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 464x331px

>>9138602
>>9138607
It's literally what ketchup is. It's just retarded burgers that have destroyed all meaning in the word.

>>9138621
are you fucking retarded? not even your image refers to it as dressing

>>9138607
dumb phoneposter

>>9138622
I think he means that those sauces are based on ketchups other than tomato ketchup. He's still wrong, though, since tomato ketchup is not itself a dressing.

File: ketchup is a dressing.png (8KB, 708x139px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 708x139px

>>9138643
Ketchup becomes a dressing the moment you put it on potato salad. Even gravy is a dressing in poutine, another delicious potato salad dish!

>>9138669
Yeah, but in OP it's not on the potato, it's in a dish served seperately. That means that it's not a dressing, rather a dipping sauce. Also, poutine sucks. I'm traveling through Canada and both ketchup chips and poutine have been major disappointments.

File: 145.jpg (86KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 400x300px

>>9138675
>what is professional photography
And salad dressing is a sauce until it's put on a salad.

>>9138669
I'm going to say that conventionally the viscosity of a sauce deems whether or not it can reasonably be called a dressing. Ketchup therefore is not a dressing but remains a sauce
>all dressings are sauces but not all sauces are dressings

>>9138745
>moving the goal posts this much
Ketchup has the same consistency as ranch dressing. And if you want to get picky about viscosity, a light jus has a far viscosity than ranch dressing.

>>9138689
So you're admitting that I'm right about OP being wrong and ketchup in a cup not being a salad dressing? There's a reason most people don't like ketchup drizzled over their fries.

File: WB_FamilyShotNosprizWeb.jpg (68KB, 600x335px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x335px

>>9138830
Using your logic: None of these are a dressing because they are still in the bottle.

>>9138832
They're not dressing anything. They're sauce.

File: IMG_0352.jpg (222KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1024x1024px

>>9138637

>>9138843
But you still call it a dressing.

>>9138832
Using your logic all sauces are dressings. Tomato ketchup is designed to be a sauce. Those are designed to be dressings, hence the classification on the bottle. If you put those in a small cup and dipped things into them, then you would have to consider it a dipping sauce.

The classification of a sauce/dressing is decided by its application rather than its composition. Thus, OP's image is not a potato salad since it does not have a dressing, and is equivalent to serving boiled potatos with a side of mayonaise.

>>9138859
>OP's image is not a potato salad since it does not have a dressing
You're saying it only becomes a salad when you put dressing on it. So if I put "salad dressing" on my steak, that steak actually becomes a salad.

>>9138864
Only if the steak meets the other requirements of a salad, in which case you would be correct.

File: 12457676891544.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>9138875
>A steak is now a salad

>>9138883
>something meeting the definition of a salad is not a salad

If you cut up a steak, mix it with vegetables, and serve it cold under a dressing, it is literally a salad.

If you pour something over a hot steak it's a sauce.
If you dip something in something else it's a dipping sauce, hence ranch dip.
My logic is infallable and you know it.

>>9138896
>mix it with vegetables
You originally implied that X can't be a salad until it has dressing on it, which by your logic, putting dressing on a steak, which is not a vegetable, would make that steak a salad.

Stop moving the goal posts.

>>9138900
You're the one moving goal posts.

If you applied a dressing to OP's french fries the addition of the dressing would make it a salad because it would meet two or more salad characteristics, assuming that they're already cold.

You started arguing the semantics of dressings to sauces because you don't understand classifications. Nowhere did i say that applying a dressing to anything would make it a salad. Applying a sauce to a hot pasta makes it pasta with sauce, applying the same sauce to pasta while it is cold makes it a pasta salad. If you don't apply the sauce it's not a salad.This isn't difficult to understand, maybe you're just stupid.