No, they’re children’s dinner plates. That’s about as far from fancy as you can get. Made from sturdy plastic instead of ceramic or what have you so they don’t break when an unruly child throws it on the floor to spite their broccoli.
Agree to disagree I guess. I have kids, and I’d absolutely save those for special occasions for them, like when we have their favorite food or something.
Sorry but I cant agree to disagree. Not because I don’t agree that they could be called “fancier” while not strictly fitting the definition of fancy, but because I enjoy arguing to much to ever stop.
You’ve picked out the single definition that fits your narrative, and many many things will fit the definition “not plain”. I also see that in the definition that you linked right after it says not plain it says “ornamental.” And while I’m sure there are some people who might use children’s bee plates as an ornament, I can’t imagine that there is very many.
But beyond all that fancy also means elaborate, which they’re not. Along with ornamental, impressive, of particular excellence, decorative, expensive, and high quality. Which these plates are not.
Here some definitions for you,
Elaborate:
Containing a lot of careful detail or many detailed parts.
Details definitely aren’t careful or many.
Impressive:
If an object or achievement is impressive, you admire or respect it, usually because it is special, important, or very large.
They’re not special, important, or very large by any objective metric.
Decorative:
Serving to decorate
especially : purely ornamental
You could use them as a decoration but it’s definitely not their purpose, and them saying that they never broke implies that they were using them.
Expensive has never, nor will it ever, mean that the product 100% of the time is better.
True, but irrelevant. It’s not about being better, it’s about being fancy.
(Edit: Whatever fancy actually means, words have lost all meaning at this point of the argument and I’m losing grip on reality)
They never broke.
Maybe, but we don’t know how often they were used or even how they were used. And while I’ve never seen these particular plates in person, I’ve know plenty of plates like them where the printed design will quickly chip of or fade which speaks of poor quality.
Compared to a plain plate with nothing on it, these are undeniably elaborate.
Something being more elaborate than something else doesn’t mean that it’s something any reasonable person would call elaborate itself. If I scribble on a piece of paper you could say it’s more elaborate than an empty page, but would anyone look at some paper with a scribble on it and call it elaborate without a reference point?
Edit: ignore that paper analogy, upon further thought I don’t think you can call something that’s elaborate elaborate without a plainer reference point to compare it to actually.
I still stand by the first bit about something being more elaborate makes it elaborate itself though.
Edit 2 electric boogaloo: Don’t take my arguing to heart I’m just doing it to be contrary at this point
These are fancy. and they’re dinner plates.
They may not be “formal”, but they’re definitely fancy.
No, they’re children’s dinner plates. That’s about as far from fancy as you can get. Made from sturdy plastic instead of ceramic or what have you so they don’t break when an unruly child throws it on the floor to spite their broccoli.
Plain children’s dinner plate:
Context is always important. Again, she meant “formal”,
Should he have known better? Sure. But she should have known him better too
In no context are the bee plates any kind of fancy.
Disagree. Bee plates are fancier than plain kid plates.
Nah, I’ve seen plenty of children’s plates and designs like that are very common. They’re definitely very cute but do not fit the definition of fancy.
Agree to disagree I guess. I have kids, and I’d absolutely save those for special occasions for them, like when we have their favorite food or something.
Sorry but I cant agree to disagree. Not because I don’t agree that they could be called “fancier” while not strictly fitting the definition of fancy, but because I enjoy arguing to much to ever stop.
That’s fair, arguing is pretty great, especially if it’s something entirely pointless.
I think I know the source of the problem.
You’re a Dino guy, but I have the solution!
found the girlfriend
deleted by creator
You’ve picked out the single definition that fits your narrative, and many many things will fit the definition “not plain”. I also see that in the definition that you linked right after it says not plain it says “ornamental.” And while I’m sure there are some people who might use children’s bee plates as an ornament, I can’t imagine that there is very many.
But beyond all that fancy also means elaborate, which they’re not. Along with ornamental, impressive, of particular excellence, decorative, expensive, and high quality. Which these plates are not.
deleted by creator
I gave objective reasons why they don’t fit the definition fancy, but you just had to latch onto the one that wasn’t.
You just keep picking one thing that works as an argument for you while ignoring all the ones that don’t.
deleted by creator
Here some definitions for you, Elaborate: Containing a lot of careful detail or many detailed parts. Details definitely aren’t careful or many.
Impressive: If an object or achievement is impressive, you admire or respect it, usually because it is special, important, or very large. They’re not special, important, or very large by any objective metric.
Decorative: Serving to decorate especially : purely ornamental You could use them as a decoration but it’s definitely not their purpose, and them saying that they never broke implies that they were using them.
True, but irrelevant. It’s not about being better, it’s about being fancy. (Edit: Whatever fancy actually means, words have lost all meaning at this point of the argument and I’m losing grip on reality)
Maybe, but we don’t know how often they were used or even how they were used. And while I’ve never seen these particular plates in person, I’ve know plenty of plates like them where the printed design will quickly chip of or fade which speaks of poor quality.
Something being more elaborate than something else doesn’t mean that it’s something any reasonable person would call elaborate itself. If I scribble on a piece of paper you could say it’s more elaborate than an empty page, but would anyone look at some paper with a scribble on it and call it elaborate without a reference point?
Edit: ignore that paper analogy, upon further thought I don’t think you can call something that’s elaborate elaborate without a plainer reference point to compare it to actually. I still stand by the first bit about something being more elaborate makes it elaborate itself though.
Edit 2 electric boogaloo: Don’t take my arguing to heart I’m just doing it to be contrary at this point
deleted by creator