Canteen "Food"

Yuk! The thought of it alone is enough to cause self induced vomiting. You will excuse me while I go puke.

... <Wiping puke off chin> When discussing it, we must first question whether it can truly be considered food. For argument's sake, we will use defnition of "food" as supplied by Webster's New World Dictionary, Student Edition:

food (food) n. [OE. foda < IE. base pa-, to feed] 1. any substance taken into and assimilated by a plant or animal to keep up its life and growth; nourishment 2. solid substances of this sort: distinguished from drink 3. a specified kind of food 4. anything that nourishes or stimulates [food for thought] -adj. 1. of or having to do with food 2. used as food [a food dish]

Let us compare the first definition, "any substance taken into and assimilated by a plant or animal to keep up its life and growth; nourishment", with the "food" as served by Canteen. I will conceed that it is a substance and furthermore that we take it into ourselves, however I have yet to assimilate anything from it, my life force has been rapidly diminishing, and I heavily doubt that I have been growing from that "food"... I have probably been shrinking from digesting myself for nutrition. "Nourishment"?

We will need to analyze this word, too. Here is the definition, also supplied by Webster's:

nour-is-ment (-ment) n. 1. a nourishing or being nourished 2. something that nourishes

nour-ish (nur'ish) vt. [< OFr. norrir < L. nutrire: see NURSE] 1. to feed or provide with substances necessary to life and growth 2. to foster; develope; promote (a feeling, attitude, habit, etc.) - nour'ish-er n. -nour'ish-ing adj. -bour'ish-ing-ly adv.

In the first supplied definition, "to feed or provide with substances necessary to life and growth", there is no doubt that they are trying to feed this "food" to us, but it is easily argued that this "food" contains substances counterproductive to both life and growth, as already demonstrated. It is more a form of anti-nourishment and therefore this definition does not fit.

Let us attack the other definition of nourishment: "to foster; develop; promote (a feeling, attitude, habit, etc.)". It is quite clear to me that nothing is fostered, developed, or promoted by this "food" other than disease and hatred of the people who should force us to eat it, those who cook it, those who sell it, and generally, anyone associated with it. This is not quite the type of nourishment they had in mind when refering to food.

Returning to the attack on Canteen "food", we shall now begin our phase two of the assult on the second definition of food: "solid substances of this sort; distinguished from drink." Being that have already established that the "food" is not of the sort (defined in the first definition of food), it makes little difference if it is solid (which we will make note that some of it is) it can not fit the second definition.

Onto assult number three; definition: "a specified kind of food" We have yet to specify Canteen "food" as food, be it specific food or not.

Number four: "anything that nourishes or stimulates". We have aleady established that the "food" does not nourish. Let us evaluate "stimulates". Here is the definition:

stimulate (-lat') vt. -lat'ed, -lat'ing [< L. pp. of stimulare, to prick < stimulus, a goad] 1. to make active or more active; stir up or spur on; arouse; excite [cooking smells stimulate my appetite] 2. Med., Physiol. to excite (an organ, etc.) to activity or increased activity -vi. to act as a stimulant or stimulus -s5tim'u-lat'er, stim'u-la'tor n. -stim'u-la'tion n. -stim'u-la'tive adj., n.

Their first definition of stimulate, "to make active or more active; stir up or spur on; arouse; excite", does not fit for Canteen "food"; it does not make me active... if anything I have been less active because of lack of nourishment. It does not stir up or spur anything but indigestion. It does not arouse me and if anything it is a turn off. It is certainly nothing to get excited about, except perhaps to form protest groups against.

Their second definition, "to excite (an organ, etc.) to activity or increased activity", is not fitting since we have already established that Canteen food excites nothing.

They supply the third definition for stimulate: "to act as a stimulant or stimulus". We have already established the "food" does not act as one.

Concluding our attack on Canteen "food", they supply two more definitions: "of or having to do with food" and "used as food". Being that we have already established that the "food" in actuality has nothing to do with food and can not be used as such, neither of these definitions are usable.

We have now compared the Canteen "food" to real food and discovered that they have very little in common, and certainly not enough to call the former "food". We should therefore stop referring to Canteen "food" as "food", unless done so in only the most bitter of sarcastic tones. Instead we should call it something more appropriate, like "poison" or "slow and painful death".