Ideally yes, it's cold in these parts and I'm not fond of pants.

Is there chips and guacamole?

I'd go anywhere with someone who identifies as guac boy.

Truely I was a fool to challenge a redditor when pedantism is on the line.

I don't want to explain guac without avocados

Nutty flavor, fatty texture. If someone called them a legume it'd still feel wrong, but less wrong.

If you're at all from the US it may be due to use to us teaching that sweet things are fruit and not sweet things are vegetables.

That 90's era food pyramid really fucked up a generation.

Do you suppose the fact that they're green and savory, instead of sweet has anything to do with it?

The correct rebuttal to this is to drown them in guac.

Green stuff people like to dip crunchy yellow triangles in.

Thank you, Scotty.

Anyone downvoting this wanna say why? Because I'm correct.

Add in pectin and guac can be jelly, too. 😌

Vegetable

Primarily tastes of the ingredients you used to make it.

Similar to imitation guacamole. Not identical, but similar.

Guacamole of course!

For me mainly like greasy nothing - I've tried guacamole very often because I love Mexican food, but the consistency simply isn't for me. Same with hummus interestingly, so only sour cream for me

Eh, tomato, avocado.

You're both right.

Dude, where you getting your apples?

I've had this exact scenario on reddit, many years ago. I can't remember the specifics but it was literally like this comic. "Without using the core part of this topic, you can't explain how this topic works"

IIRC it was climate change (back when that was the hot button political issue) and something like "oh yeah, well without using man made CO2 emissions, explain the rise in CO2 and temperature, you can't", where their point was that it was "volcanoes"

Never heard of anyone doing that ngl. Except possibly secularists with arguments about certain morality, eg, "without using the Bible, explain how homosexuality is immoral" although I think I've only come across that one twice

Never heard that one, that's quite mental. One thing I heard from a young earth creationist was that "global warming isn't accurate because it's using an assumption that the earth is 6-10,000 years old".... Although in that case, wouldn't it be much more urgent?