177
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 42 points 3 months ago

So 'boneless chicken wings' aren't really wings, and now they aren't boneless either.. I don't know if I'd trust the chicken part for much longer.

[-] vrek@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago

Delete if self-promotion is not allowed but I am looking for capital funding for my new startup featuring Ham based boneless chicken wings...all the fun of boneless chicken wings with the added fun of ham. It will be a sensation!

*not actually looking for funding or a self-promotion...its a joke

[-] fubarx@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

It's common sense that "Boneless Chicken Wings" are not:

  • Boneless
  • Wings, or
  • Chicken

Any consumer who believes a business for saying so is responsible for their own failure to understand the meaning of those words.

Now, let us take a look at "Pesticide-Free Vegetables."

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago

well, there is presedent from the U.S. Supreme Court that you don't need a spine to be a justice, showing that bones don't matter

[-] littletoolshed@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

What’s the definition of boneless again? Oh yeah, every dictionary can be a reference:

boneless adjective

  1. Without bones.
  2. Without bones, especially as pertaining to meat or poultry prepared for eating.
  3. Lacking strength, courage, or resolve; spineless.
[-] dojan@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago

They're aiming for that last one.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

The chicken were chicken?

That can track.

[-] radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com 20 points 3 months ago

The claim that boneless chicken can have bones sounds ridiculous. However, the suit is about whether the restaurant should be liable for its chicken food (which naturally has bones) not being 100% bone free. I think it is a high bar and no restaurant should be held to that level. I do not believe a restaurant should be held negligent and liable for all the medical bills because they did not remove every last piece of bone from the chicken.

[-] peg@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

If you can't be bothered to remove the bones you shouldn't call it boneless chicken. Words have meaning and that's more important than some shitty companies profits.

[-] wjrii@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Yes, this is an important nuance that's being overlooked, but I do agree with the dissent that there's enough here for a jury to decide. Classic question of fact as to whether ordinary care was used at the various steps of the process.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Well you don't really believe the chicken fingers were made from a chickens finger do you?

That was actually said in this case.

[-] tastysnacks@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

So chicken nuggets are not chicken nuggets?

[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Makes sense? You can't guarantee a bone won't get through sometimes. Are we supposed to sue when seedless watermelons contain a single seed sometimes?

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
177 points (91.5% liked)

Not The Onion

12175 readers
768 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS