Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
If I order boneless wings, I know that they're not made from the wing of a chicken, but they goddamn better be boneless, and saying that "boneless wings is not a guarantee that they are in fact boneless" goes against every linguistic and culinary expectation about that item. I agree with the dissent.
Every chicken place in their county should serve bone-in boneless chicken just because they can now.
How about the Japan method of cramming a bone in the end of a hotdog?
bone-in wieners, aka 'boners'
I think that's technically called 'sounding'...
you jest but this literally gets done with hams all the time.
I need this for tofu stat!
bone"less" mean less bone, not no bone, bonehead
-court
Wait until you hear about these new "Oops all Bone" wings.
What part of the chicken are they made from?? I've made wings at home and they were clearly wings, although mine weren't boneless
Boneless wings are typically breast meat, like tenders and nuggets, cut into shapes that resemble wings.
https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/4316/what-are-boneless-wings.html
So they really are just chicken nuggets for adults then...
Seriously, what the fuck are you guys doing over there if "boneless wings" are neither boneless nor wings?!
To be fair, calling them "wings" was to my knowledge more about linking them to how chicken wings as a dish were prepared and presented than a statement on where the meat came from on the bird.
I don't know much about this case in particular but it fits into a long pattern of activist conservative judges basically legislating from the bench to protect business interests. So it's unsurprising that one of them would basically say "no one actually believes the wing part, so there's no reason for them to believe the boneless part either, and therefore there's no liability if there are bones in the product."
You say "over there" but this is an Ohio ruling. That'd be like judging all of Europe for Belarusian rulings.
Hey, American justice system... what, pray tell, the fuck?
It makes sense when you realize corporate oligarchy.
pray tell fuck is better than eat pray love
So advertising cannot be false any more?
If you don’t want bones in your food try eating things which do not have bones.
Like a ham sandwich?
Like fish!
BEHOLD: a boneless chicken
So when I read boneless wings I have to assume not only is it boneless-style, wing-style mystery chicken but also it's not necessarily safe to eat.
I thought we had the PFDA and USDA to assure that our boneless wings had no bones in them and were wings.
I still want buffalo and wings in my buffalo wings.
He struck it dead, and with its head, he went galumphing back.
I wonder if the judge would consider “bone-in” wings a shape like chicken” fingers” is then.