pcs Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 What are you talking about?!? I haven't had a McNuggest in about 3 or 4 years' date=' yet they tasted then the same they did when I was a kid. Just this really crappy meat with a strange breading. They are tasty. Burger King has the "healthier-looking" chicken nuggest. However, I don't eat either...I just get the chicken sandwiches. The dollar menu gets me every time..[/quote'] Dude, nuggets are tha shizznit. Back in like...hell, 88 or 89, McD did some sort of Chinese thing. It was just nuggets, duck sauce and chopsticks but damn it was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Think of it as establishing Man's dominion over Animal. I prefer to think of it as... 'THE CHICKENS REVENGE FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE' I bet you never knew quite how vindictive chickens are did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I have to wonder if anybody will write a book on what soybeans go through to become fake milk or tofu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starbug1 Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 what is that, ATP murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Ghastly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I have to wonder if anybody will write a book on what soybeans go through to become fake milk or tofu. ...And then the soy beans were brutally squashed after being kept in freezing conditions and being slit with an unsanitary knife by untrained technicians. The room was knee deep in soy squash and beans were seen falling to ther floor still ALIVE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 It seems that it is more a reaction to the imagery in the article that turns people off. The process its self is better than the alternative: Inexperenced people slaughtering their own animals, which due to their inexperence the animals suffer extreme pain and take a long time to die. The process described in the article makes it more acceptable in my oppinion because the suffering of the animals are minimised (what ever the reason). Also take into account what happens to animals in the wild that get preyed upon, first they must make a mad dash for thier lives, and suffer bites and clawings as they are brought down. Then most preditors will not be able to just kill them. They must first be strangled to death, usually by their own blood as the preditor bites into their tracea, which can take several minutes. All in all prety grusome. What goes on in the slaughter house is quick, and painless compared to what could and does go on. the kind of imagery protrayed in the article does not put me off fat foor (or meat in general), but what does put me off, is how the animals are treated before hand (battery hens for eggs, or hormone and antibiotic fed animals for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starbug1 Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Okay, how many people have read the book? note: I just took it off the shelf again and I got the title wrong. It's Fast Food Nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 When was it published btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Okay' date=' how many people have read the book? note: I just took it off the shelf again and I got the title wrong. It's Fast Food [i']Nation[/i]. Isn't that the one that states that McDonald's fries have more meat content than the burgers (as they're fried in meat grease)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Isn't that the one that states that McDonald's fries have more meat content than the burgers (as they're fried in meat grease)? Which is of course complete BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Which is of course complete BS. ...with a bit of research, I just found that McDonald's fries are fried in vegetable oil, not meat grease. So there goes that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starbug1 Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 When was it published btw? 2001. Isn't that the one that states that McDonald's fries have more meat content than the burgers (as they're fried in meat grease)? For decades, McDonald's cooked its french fries in a mixture of about 7 percent conttonseed oil and 93 percent beef tallow. The mix gave the fries their unique flavor -- and more saturated beef fat per ounce than a McDonald's hamburger. more fat content, not meat content. (So I take it you've read it, or at least heard of it?) For reassurance about all of your imminent heart attacks because your arteries could possibly have been critical mass by the age of 20, MD changed its ways... Amid a barrage of criticism over the amounnt of cholesterol in their fries, McDonald's switched to pure vegetable oil in 1990. whew. Now that good taste is supplied by natural and artificial fat flavoring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now