No "real" is mentioned in the title. And any suggestion the common, non-trad variety is fake is conspicuously absent from the body.
Correct, but “fake” is mentioned in the title, and real is the obverse/inverse of fake. It’s the inverse of the implication that “fake balsamic vinegar exists,” which is a statement that has multiple possible meanings and interpretations, one of which being: any balsamic vinegar which is not traditional balsamic vinegar is “fake.” I do not subscribe to such a view, as I explained my own view further in my original comment.
> And any suggestion the common, non-trad variety is fake is conspicuously absent from the body.
To me, it’s somewhat obvious that the author believes real balsamic vinegar exists and so too must fake exist of the same, by process of deduction and elimination: due to the fact that the author discusses DOP traditional balsamic vinegar, the two grape varieties and growth regions used for grape must, multiple wooden barrels, and so on; these characteristics and methods are contrasted with other balsamic vinegars made using wine vinegar.
To me, it reads that the author is using a wide reading of the team “fake” and a narrow interpretation of “real” by implying that the only real balsamic vinegar is traditional, and anything else is therefore fake.
To quote TFA, italics mine for emphasis:
>> And yet, many have never tasted the real "black gold" of Modena, Italy. It takes 12 years to make the best, aceto balsamico tradizionale (traditional balsamic vinegar), and at least 25 to make the finest, extra Vecchio.
>> Because of traditional balsamic vinegar's painstaking artisanal production process, supplies are limited, and it tends to be rather pricey. And so, as the global demand for it has risen since the early 1980s, a market for imitation balsamic vinegar and cheaper products has exploded. In one instance in March 2019, a dramatic Interpol operation in northern Italy seized 9,000 tonnes of crushed grapes intended to be made into fake balsamic vinegar.
What do you think the author means by ‘“fake” balsamic vinegar?’
Not a reasonable interpretation.
Not traditional means only what it says.
> To me, it’s somewhat obvious that the author believes real balsamic vinegar exists and so too must fake exist of the same
To me its obvious that an editor added a clickbait title that fails to accord with the article content. Period.
You’re not responding to the strongest form of my argument here or to that of TFA in OP, as is encouraged by the HN Guidelines, instead opting for a dismissive, argumentative attitude which isn’t really helping your argument, to be honest.
I mean, you aren’t really making much of an argument, either, just authoritatively stating your opinions as fact with no actual factual basis or even any attempt to articulate your own views.
Anyone can be contrary, but to simply say “I disagree” or “you’re wrong” isn’t consistent with HN Guidelines either, so I’m not sure what you want me to do with your responses here.
It’s fine to have a difference of opinion or disagree regarding matters of fact, but you really owe it to yourself and to the other visitors to post better.
Period.
I'm responding to the only form of your argument here.
Please respond with your views on OP and my views on balsamic vinegar or I guess you can continue with your own form of argument. Honestly I’ll take nearly any kind of response showing some kind of effort, but this ain’t it.
> "Real" balsamic vinegar as the title uses the world real ...
(the title does not use the word real at all) I don't believe it is worth effort to rebut.
One sign that a thread is leaving the rails is when people start arguing about their argument, as you guys did here and here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40280772
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40279988
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
One sign that a thread is leaving the rails is when people start arguing about their argument, as you guys did here and here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40280772
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40279988
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I was attempting to reformulate/rephrase my discussion to avoid low-effort and groundless dismissal of my good faith points. I was all but asking them why they believe the way they do and what they believe, to no avail. I was turning their own words against them in order to hold a mirror up to the absurdity of carrying on like they do when all else failed.
Thanks for the points all the same, including my debate partner, after all this, and also to dang, naturally.