Where's the beef?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:48 am

Given it's fast food, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I'm glad I don't eat at most fast food joints anyway. The food is just gross!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_ ... ll_lawsuit

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:35 pm

The meat mixture sold by Taco Bell restaurants contains binders and extenders and does not meet the minimum requirements set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be labeled as \"beef,

hahahhaah

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:49 pm

No quiero taco bell.

I always knew taco bell sucked. Now I know why. RAAAWRG!

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:05 pm

I dunno, assuming the mixture has stayed the same over the years, I dont mind the not-so-meaty meat. What I do mind is how the percentage of taco filling has been shifting more and more toward lettuce while sacrificing cheese and the kinda-meat.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:58 pm

you mean \"cheese\"

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:11 am

i wish we had taco bell here.
i like tacos. Any sort of fast food that isn't fried chicken or burgers sounds like a good idea.

when subway started here, that was pretty great.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:23 am

Isaac wrote:you mean "cheese"

No thats been vanishing too.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:03 am

Avder wrote:
Isaac wrote:you mean "cheese"
No thats been vanishing too.

Ick! Now these guys are getting even cheaper and using 'soy cheese'. Just nasty! It's not the same taste or texture.

That begs the question, since all soy now is GMO, unless it's organic, what will be the consequences of eating it so much? Personally, my system can't tolerate food even fried in soy based oils! That includes all the fast food french fries anymore. It ruins the taste too. Back when fries were cooked in lard, they tasted oh so good! But since that's really bad for us to eat, peanut oil would be a much tastier alternative as a fry oil.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:04 pm

@TC: Also I hear that all the preservatives in fast food allow Embalmers to use fewer embalming chemicals.

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:49 pm

Pza: the delicious element.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:54 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Avder wrote:
Isaac wrote:you mean "cheese"
No thats been vanishing too.
Ick! Now these guys are getting even cheaper and using 'soy cheese'. Just nasty! It's not the same taste or texture.

That begs the question, since all soy now is GMO, unless it's organic, what will be the consequences of eating it so much? Personally, my system can't tolerate food even fried in soy based oils! That includes all the fast food french fries anymore. It ruins the taste too. Back when fries were cooked in lard, they tasted oh so good! But since that's really bad for us to eat, peanut oil would be a much tastier alternative as a fry oil.

Consider that many dairy products in the world are now derived from cows that are heavily injected with bovine growth hormone, which has been implicated in making boys more effeminate and causing girls to go through puberty as young as age six.

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:59 am

Not to mention the chemical put in plastic used in teething rings and other baby toys that has the effect of 'feminizing' boys.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:37 pm

Blaze wrote:Not to mention the chemical put in plastic used in teething rings and other baby toys that has the effect of 'feminizing' boys.

What-choo talking about Blaze?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:11 pm

THIS:

Bisphenol A

Mmmmmmmmmmmm cute, man boobs and breast cancers courtesy of plastics.

More:

http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasti ... 5nov03.htm

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:59 am

http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html?91#ref91

Find and download the December 4th (2010) episode (The Irrelevant Show), and start it at 3:15... it's the second sketch (though the first one is great too, so you might want to listen to that as well).

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:04 pm

Isaac wrote:
Blaze wrote:Not to mention the chemical put in plastic used in teething rings and other baby toys that has the effect of 'feminizing' boys.
What-choo talking about Blaze?

Look it up ^_~

Sorry, I lost the link for it and I don't feel like saving it again.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:18 pm

Avder wrote:Consider that many dairy products in the world are now derived from cows that are heavily injected with bovine growth hormone, which has been implicated in making boys more effeminate and causing girls to go through puberty as young as age six.

interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin
The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.[1] Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.

If you ask me, the main cause of boys seeming apparently more "effeminiate" in modern times, is the cultural loss of unrealistic masculine stereotypes. Good riddance.
Be yourself.

---------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty
Seems that obesity is the main cause of this, which makes sense as it correlates.

also this one was interesting, it seems that early onset of puberty in girls, can be an evolved reaction to an absent father figure in family life.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072126.htm

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:53 pm

roid wrote: ---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty
Seems that obesity is the main cause of this, which makes sense as it correlates.

Correlation doesn't mean cause. It could be the other way around or there could be a third variable causing both.
But you must have already known that.

Thenior · Post by **Thenior** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:26 am

roid wrote:If you ask me, the main cause of boys seeming apparently more "effeminiate" in modern times, is the cultural loss of unrealistic masculine stereotypes. Good riddance.
Be yourself.

Brain washed much? Modern times like their men to be "manageable wussies" instead of strong leaders.

The only reason why people "Be Themselves" is because that is what society has taught them to be. It's a blending of gender roles in society - and it fails to make best use of both genders natural talents and abilities.

(just a note, I am no shovenist. I love and respect all women - just not the ones who feel like they need to act like a man. Or the men who feel like they need to act like a woman).

Sorry, off topic.

TOR_LordRaven · Post by **TOR_LordRaven** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:58 am

MUST WATCH THIS:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... reme-court

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:29 am

Thenior wrote:
roid wrote:If you ask me, the main cause of boys seeming apparently more "effeminiate" in modern times, is the cultural loss of unrealistic masculine stereotypes. Good riddance.
Be yourself.
Brain washed much? Modern times like their men to be "manageable wussies" instead of strong leaders.

The only reason why people "Be Themselves" is because that is what society has taught them to be. It's a blending of gender roles in society - and it fails to make best use of both genders natural talents and abilities.

agreed

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:45 pm

Thenior wrote: (just a note, I am no shovenist. I love and respect all women - just not the ones who feel like they need to act like a man. Or the men who feel like they need to act like a woman).

um, what's a shovenist? is that someone who shovels all day?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:00 pm

Ferno wrote:
Thenior wrote: (just a note, I am no shovenist. I love and respect all women - just not the ones who feel like they need to act like a man. Or the men who feel like they need to act like a woman).
um, what's a shovenist? is that someone who shovels all day?

Definition of SHOVENIST
1: excessive or blind shoving
2: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3: an attitude of superiority toward members of the receiptionists; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude, To Shove in this.

Richard Cranium · Post by **Richard Cranium** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:57 pm

Sorry, I have to post this...

Maybe you remember these ads.

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:47 pm

TOR_LordRaven wrote:MUST WATCH THIS:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... reme-court

The website is stupid. It won't let me watch it because I'm "in Canada".
TV networks have got to stop being so overpossesive.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:57 pm

Ferno wrote:
Thenior wrote: (just a note, I am no shovenist. I love and respect all women - just not the ones who feel like they need to act like a man. Or the men who feel like they need to act like a woman).
um, what's a shovenist? is that someone who shovels all day?

Everyday I'm shovelin!

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:06 pm

Alter-Fox wrote:
roid wrote: ---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty
Seems that obesity is the main cause of this, which makes sense as it correlates.
Correlation doesn't mean cause. It could be the other way around or there could be a third variable causing both.
But you must have already known that.

Urgh, i was wondering if someone would answer with that. Yes i was commenting more on why it makes intuitive sense, rather than why it is (but i can understand the confusion).

You are technically correct: Correlation doesn't technically imply causation, until studies confirm it. Short of a study though, Correlation actually does imply causation and is a perfectly fine shortcut most of the time. I mean think of the meaning of "Imply", it's more like "suggest", which is exactly what correlation does - it's a huge hint that something is linked here. And a study generally will confirm it, as even partially flawed logic used in everyday life turns out mostly correct (it can just fall into pitfalls now and again).

Sorry the whole "correlation isn't causation" thing has become kinda a pet peave for me. It's often an overused statement.
http://xkcd.com/552/

Thenior wrote:
roid wrote:If you ask me, the main cause of boys seeming apparently more "effeminiate" in modern times, is the cultural loss of unrealistic masculine stereotypes. Good riddance.
Be yourself.
Brain washed much? Modern times like their men to be "manageable wussies" instead of strong leaders.

The only reason why people "Be Themselves" is because that is what society has taught them to be. It's a blending of gender roles in society - and it fails to make best use of both genders natural talents and abilities.

(just a note, I am no chauvinist. I love and respect all women - just not the ones who feel like they need to act like a man. Or the men who feel like they need to act like a woman).

Sorry, off topic.

The problem is that you have to define what a man is, and what a woman is, and you will invariably want to exclude people from your definition purely because of your personal biases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
eg: are all TRUE WOMEN happy in the kitchen? Do all TRUE MEN enjoy watching sports?

My overarching point is that if you really study such limited definitions of man and woman, you inevitably see how the definitions are deeply flawed and limited. Please don't use privileged ignorance (You're heterosexual, white, male, Christian, American. Lucky you) as an excuse to not think about it - the relaxing of stereotypes has enabled many people to live much happier, inclusive, and richer lives. These people were up ★■◆● creek before, had to hide, and could not live full lives. If you were in their place you would feel differently.

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:26 pm

roid wrote:No true Scotsman

No there are lots. There are no true brits left though. They were all abducted by aliens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1sYgknWGSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljCQeqFouVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMCNltgrs1U

The horror! The blancmanges are going to win wimbledon!

To be more serious, I'm taking a Psych Research Methods/Data Analysis course right now so I need to be in that mindset.

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:25 am

I has a shuvel.

Alter-Fox wrote:
TOR_LordRaven wrote:MUST WATCH THIS:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... reme-court
The website is stupid. It won't let me watch it because I'm "in Canada".
TV networks have got to stop being so overpossesive.

Yeah they better stop being overpossessive or they'll end up being possessive :)

I agree with Thenior, because all my opinions are based on facts and not ignorance and emotion.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:30 pm

Blaze wrote:because all my opinions are based on facts and not ignorance and emotion.

ME TOO!!!! AAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAH!!! AAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:47 pm

Just type /orangutan next time, it's easier.

tunnelcat wrote:Where's the beef?

I suspect it's being hoarded by the Burger King. >_>

Thenior · Post by **Thenior** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:30 pm

The problem is that you have to define what a man is, and what a woman is, and you will invariably want to exclude people from your definition purely because of your personal biases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
eg: are all TRUE WOMEN happy in the kitchen? Do all TRUE MEN enjoy watching sports?

My overarching point is that if you really study such limited definitions of man and woman, you inevitably see how the definitions are deeply flawed and limited. Please don't use privileged ignorance (You're heterosexual, white, male, Christian, American. Lucky you) as an excuse to not think about it - the relaxing of stereotypes has enabled many people to live much happier, inclusive, and richer lives. These people were up ★■◆● creek before, had to hide, and could not live full lives. If you were in their place you would feel differently.

I understand what your saying, and I do agree to a point. I don't think all women should be in the kitchen, and I don't think all men should love hunting, and watching sports. Very far from it. I think in our past history, there has been some major stereotypical gender problems.

But I also believe that society has acted like a pendulum, and swung too far the other way. For instance, Women are (typically) more nurturing, more caring, more soft and more gentle. They tend to also be more emotional, and they also tend to let their emotions influence their decisions more. This automatically lends itself to women being in roles where they interact and care for people, are a mother, etc. And lets face it, a raving, bossy, angry women isn't very attractive to anyone - but a sweet, kind, gentle woman is.

Men (typically) are stronger, more apt to think clearly in a emotional situation, but they are also more aggressive and bullheaded. Again, this is all generally speaking. What is universally regarded as a good man is a wise, strong, caring leader. No one really respects a lazy, belligerent, or bossy man.

And when you bring a emotional, kind, gentle woman together with a strong, wise man, you get a perfect relationship - what was originally intended in marriage. Modern society, in contract, tends to have men that act more like women, and women that act more like men. They also tend to be more independent (selfish, goals are self centered) and not family driven.

I know your probably thinking this is just my western mindset, but it is also a biblical mindset, and makes alot of logical sense.

Wow, that was a long way off of a thread about taco bell beef. And man, did I spell chauvinist wrong...

Blaze · Post by **Blaze** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:12 am

PUSH BUTTON

GRIND BEEF

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:05 am

Host 1: "Do I detect a hint of real meat in there?"

Host 2: "They put everything in these luncheon meats, so yes, you definitely might be tasting real meat."

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:14 am

Thenior wrote:Modern society, in contract, tends to have men that act more like women, and women that act more like men

You mean like how my wife is an engineer who develops military hardware and solves difficult technical problems, while I stay at home and take care of the baby and the laundry?

Thenior · Post by **Thenior** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:16 am

Lothar wrote:
Thenior wrote:Modern society, in contract, tends to have men that act more like women, and women that act more like men

You mean like how my wife is an engineer who develops military hardware and solves difficult technical problems, while I stay at home and take care of the baby and the laundry?

Ok, first off, stop taking what I say and going to the extreme with it.

READ: I am not saying women must stay home, make babies, never get an education, and never work.

Every person is unique. When I speak about gender roles, I am merely speaking about what each genders typical natural gifts and abilities lend themselves to. I am not creating a box and saying that is what they must be. I don't look at some woman who is the CEO of a corporation and think, "gosh, she is out of her place. She should be working at home." I work with several women, and I think they do a great job at what they do.

In the past, our environment sort of naturally took on the form of men "bringing home the bacon" and women staying at home. For instance, a man went hunting and provided heat and food, simply because the physical labor required was more then most women could handle. Granted, this was severely abused, resulting in women being disgraced in society, and becoming extremely under privileged.

In modern society, it does lend itself more to women in the workforce. It no longer purely requires strength to provide, but both wisdom and knowledge. When I make statements about what women and men roles are, I use the word typical for a reason.

But I also believe that in modern society's attempt to buck previous misconceptions, it has undermined itself to some degree. It doesn't promote others, especially in a family relationship. It promotes independence, and tries to blur the lines between men and women. Men and women are equal, but they are not the same. All I am saying is that I think modern society has taken it too far, and is resulting in women who are too strong, too independent, and men that are, honestly, losers.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:25 am

Lothar wrote:
Thenior wrote:Modern society, in contract, tends to have men that act more like women, and women that act more like men
You mean like how my wife is an engineer who develops military hardware and solves difficult technical problems, while I stay at home and take care of the baby and the laundry?

that I have no problem with. while not a "traditional family" you have defined your roles. Though if I wanted to be difficult I could point to Titus 2-5 (though I only do this because of your profession of faith) My question would be who leads your family and who submits. if it is you that leads then you have taken that leadership role. if not then those lines may be blurred.

I will agree with Thenoir that with society in general the bluring of the Genders is becoming more prevelant

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:42 am

this might be best to split off into an E+C thread.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:54 am

CUDA wrote:this might be best to split off into an E+C thread.

Agreed.

I might jump in on this one if it gets moved.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:29 pm

CUDA wrote: I will agree with Thenoir that with society in general the bluring of the Genders is becoming more prevelant

Not that blurred...

Bee

Where's the beef?

Where's the beef?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?

Re: Where's the beef?