|
that's mummy meat op would
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
It's just not the same without the sarcophagus juice
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
sarcophagau jus 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
He's teriyaki style!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I got some south african drywors off the market today, it's... very very strange, it's like a dessicated sausage except it has big globs of fat in it, I think it's suet? The taste is quite pleasant but the texture is very weird. Yeah the lumps of fat work OK in boerewors because they melt down as it cooks and keep it moist, but in droewors they just kind of sit there and coat your mouth in cold grease when you eat it. Much prefer biltong for my dessicated meat snacking.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Finally, snack ideas for my human centipede viewing party.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Tasty treats from Rusty Brown's Ring Donuts.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Tasty treats from Rusty Brown's Ring Donuts.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
 Pork floss roll cake
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Condensed cream of shrimp soup makes its triumphant return!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
I've absolutely seen worse but... the title at the top says "Mainstays Without Meat" and the recipe explicitly calls for crab meat.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
In the 50s, only beef and chicken was meat, i guess
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:In the 50s, only beef and chicken was meat, i guess Still common in lots of places. Meat means land animal, if you don't want meat you can still have fish.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
There weren't a lot of people (in the US anyway) who were vegetarian as a lifestyle choice, but there were a lot of Catholics, and for Friday purposes, fish and seafood don't count as "meat". It's why the Filet-o-Fish exists, why fish fries are a Wisconsin supper club thing, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Still common in lots of places. Meat means land animal, if you don't want meat you can still have fish. I think things have changed a bit now but back when I first went to Japan in the 90s this was a very common response if you said you were vegetarian
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
hallo spacedog posted:I think things have changed a bit now but back when I first went to Japan in the 90s this was a very common response if you said you were vegetarian Still extremely common and irritating in non-western Europe
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
hallo spacedog posted:I think things have changed a bit now but back when I first went to Japan in the 90s this was a very common response if you said you were vegetarian Still common, according to my veg friends in Asia.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
What did I ever do to Crabby Joe?! I don't deserve this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
this is a fish, therefore not meat this is also a fish 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:this is a fish, therefore not meat Right you are https://twitter.com/SisyphusRedemed/status/1648209446567555072
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:this is a fish, therefore not meat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGK27dSHYu8
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
 Choose your fighter: 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
On a vacation my family found a can of the Cream of Shrimp in a store. My daughter insisted we buy it. I have no good idea of what to do with it now.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Right you are A false dilemma. The best course of action is that "fish" should mean a member of Actinopterygii (also known as the "ray-finned fishes"), which includes the animals that most people would typically picture in their head if you said "think of a fish". The problem is that people started labeling lots of other clades as "fish," and thus doomed it to be too broad of a classification. Including either Chondrichthyes (sharks and rays) and/or Actinistia (coelacanths) together with Actinopterygii necessarily also includes all tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). And if you include "jellyfish", the problem gets way worse. Just because we colloquially refer to sharks or coelacanths as "fish" doesn't mean they should be biologically considered "fish". People are already used to "technically, jellyfish aren't fish." I think people would accept "technically, the coelacanth isn't a fish" more than they'd accept "technically, you are a fish" or "technically, there's no such thing as a fish."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
I will be the fish decider, put before me all the beasts of the sea and I shall judge whether or not they are fish. This will be indisputable.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
JGdmn posted:On a vacation my family found a can of the Cream of Shrimp in a store. My daughter insisted we buy it. Lemme tell you about a friend of mine, ol' Crabby Joe
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I will be the fish decider, put before me all the beasts of the sea and I shall judge whether or not they are fish. This will be indisputable. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I will be the fish decider, put before me all the beasts of the sea and I shall judge whether or not they are fish. This will be indisputable. Nice try, cat.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
ninja turtle, not fish
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:A false dilemma. The best course of action is that "fish" should mean a member of Actinopterygii (also known as the "ray-finned fishes"), which includes the animals that most people would typically picture in their head if you said "think of a fish". The problem is that people started labeling lots of other clades as "fish," and thus doomed it to be too broad of a classification. Including either Chondrichthyes (sharks and rays) and/or Actinistia (coelacanths) together with Actinopterygii necessarily also includes all tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). And if you include "jellyfish", the problem gets way worse. Biologists shouldn't try to redefine terms that are already in common use, the whole point of inventing a bunch of pseudolatin is so they can say 'Actinopterygii' when they mean 'Actinopterygii', instead of trying to redefine 'fish' to mean 'Actinopterygii'.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
Botanists can get hosed. You got it wrong if an "apple" isn't a "fruit." Hang it up.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I will be the fish decider, put before me all the beasts of the sea and I shall judge whether or not they are fish. This will be indisputable.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Biologists shouldn't try to redefine terms that are already in common use, the whole point of inventing a bunch of pseudolatin is so they can say 'Actinopterygii' when they mean 'Actinopterygii', instead of trying to redefine 'fish' to mean 'Actinopterygii'. That's the "technically there's no such thing as a fish" option. I just think that's less useful. When teaching about this stuff, I think it's easier to refine people's natural colloquial conception of what a "fish" is rather than try to get them to abandon it altogether. Besides, I'm not sure what stake you have in this, Tunicate. This is vertebrate business.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:That's the "technically there's no such thing as a fish" option.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Heck yes, fish fight.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Taxonomy's a perfect example of man's hubris.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
just got reminded of this. the verdict: eh, all right. https://twitter.com/bonerhitler/status/1649493288213270562?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
I'm posting this to get to a page without the loving Gravyfish staring at me.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Scarodactyl posted:Botanists can get hosed. You got it wrong if an "apple" isn't a "fruit." Hang it up. For most of European history "apple" just meant fruit anyway
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 21:07
|
|