I'm just going to quote your metaphor again.

>"After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it".

> Watch a new movie.

But my problem isn't with Batman Begins. My problem is I don't want to watch a movie every night. I don't want to. Do you get that part? I understand you really like movies, and you enjoy setting up this whole system so you can watch a movie every night and not have it take up your whole day, but I don't like movies as much as you do. Most movies I find pretty dumb. It's boring to sit through the same movie over and over again, and picking out a new movie takes time I'd rather spend doing something I enjoy. I like a good film on the weekend if it's something that really engages me, or if I've got friends over, but otherwise it just seems like a needless time sink.

Why do I need to watch a movie? Why is my only other option to watch static? Why do I need to watch anything?

To dereference, if it is not necessary for my survival[0], why do I need to cook? I know that I can if I want to. And I do, sometimes. Why on earth should I when I don't want to?

[0] Disclaimed because I'm bearish on Soylent-- I don't have that much faith in the USDA. But I think something like it should exist, and I'd jump on it in a heartbeat if it worked.

I know what you're saying. But my metaphor was a response to being sick of cooking the same meal each night. Hence also the metaphor with static (let's say it's 5 seconds of static vs Batman every night, to forestall the next re-re-rehash).

> But my metaphor was a response to being sick of cooking the same meal each night.

If you're willing to grant that "chug a Soylent" is as effective a solution as "learn a new dish", and is vastly preferable if learning to prepare and repeatedly preparing a new dish doesn't intrinsically interest me, I have no problem with that.

The reason I'm arguing is that, clearly, I don't think that soylent is a better choice than learning a new dish.

If that's about the nutritional content of Soylent specifically, I misunderstood and agree with you, pending further evidence, because I want something I can be sure is healthy. Since that's precisely the same thing the G^nP you originally responded to said, I hope you can understand why I thought your critique was intended to engage with the concept of meal replacement in general.

But if that is the case, the reason I'm having trouble with your metaphor is I don't see how it doesn't make it abundantly clear to you that what we're arguing about is just a difference of taste between us.