No more Alberta Beef at Earl's

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Or if our electronics were produced by child labour?

Good Point.


So we can't look at things is a vacuum.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by btimbit

It's a hypothetical, but for the sake of argument, what beef supplier use slave labour?

No idea, my point is I think you shouldn't look at things in a vacuum of "only taste buds" in this type of thing.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

No idea, my point is I think you shouldn't look at things in a vacuum of "only taste buds" in this type of thing.

It's restaurant food. Taste should be the be all and end all.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by btimbit

It's restaurant food. Taste should be the be all and end all.

So it's not hypothetical?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So it's not hypothetical?

In an effort to remove bias and labels, yes, it is

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Some people like to find places to focus the anger they feel

Yeah. I don't get it. People are so fickle.

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

No idea, my point is I think you shouldn't look at things in a vacuum of "only taste buds" in this type of thing.

Another pointless point by UBC

Bravo!!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

Another pointless point by UBC

Bravo!!

never mind not worth it

[Coach]

Originally Posted by btimbit

It's restaurant food. Taste should be the be all and end all.

Someone may view the "humane" product as superior, though, no?

You can't make the hypothetical of "well if you didn't know, what would you choose?" OF course anyone in that circumstance would choose the better tasting meat. But that dances around the entire issue.

What if I gave you the choice of humane beef or a mystery meat, and the mystery meat was the best thing you've ever tasted. But then you found out it was people meat. Wouldn't your thoughts on that change?

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

never mind not worth it

why?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Someone may view the "humane" product as superior, though, no?

You can't make the hypothetical of "well if you didn't know, what would you choose?" OF course anyone in that circumstance would choose the better tasting meat. But that dances around the entire issue.

What if I gave you the choice of humane beef or a mystery meat, and the mystery meat was the best thing you've ever tasted. But then you found out it was people meat. Wouldn't your thoughts on that change?

Depends on the kind of people meat? Was it Kosher or Halal? What was its last meal?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Here's my question then, and try to remove it from this situation entirely. Ignore that nonsense "humane" angle bs and just focus on the product itself.

Would you prefer a restaurant used a local product over one that's superior?

Would you like to try again without asking a loaded question?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Would you like to try again without asking a loaded question?

Would you prefer a restaurant used a local product, or one that tasted better.

[Resolute 14]

Repeating a loaded question does not make it neutral. Forcing people into a false choice between "local" and "better" pre-supposes that local is not better. That is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. In this case, particularly given it was obvious that you went in with the pre-conception that the Kansas beef would be better, and now claim the result you wanted.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Repeating a loaded question does not make it neutral. Forcing people into a false choice between "local" and "better" pre-supposes that local is not better. That is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. In this case, particularly given it was obvious that you went in with the pre-conception that the Kansas beef would be better, and now claim the result you wanted.

I'm just curious of people's opinion on this whole thing if we removed all the humane and marketing nonsense from the equation.

Nothing disingenuous about it. I didn't like the move from the start, but being that taste is all that matters to me on subjects like this, I decided to try it and see if I liked it. And I did.

I challenge you and others to at least do the same before being so adamant about an opinion.

I find it curious that so many have slammed the move despite not trying it. I didn't like the humane spin they put in it, I also don't care if the animals throat was slit or if it got backed into by a tractor.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I'm just curious of people's opinion on this whole thing if we removed all the humane and marketing nonsense from the equation.

Nothing disingenuous about it. I didn't like the move from the start, but being that taste is all that matters to me on subjects like this, I decided to try it and see if I liked it. And I did.

I challenge you and others to at least so the same

Sure. How much better is it? Is it a little better or is it full blown orgasmic?

[puffnstuff]

I want the best tasting local product.

[Coach]

But you can't remove that as part of the equation, because it's the whole reason for the debate. Of course if you remove that issue people are going to choose what tastes best. Some people won't care what tastes better if the situation it comes from isn't palatable.

There are vegans and vegetarians the world over that choose things objectively worse tasting because of their social stance.

[Resolute 14]

In my experience, btimbit, I find local Canadian beef is generally better than what I have had in the US. Subjectively, if whatever they get out of Kansas is better than what they had before, then Earls is doubly at fault for not only abandoning Canadian producers, but also for previously using inferior ones and/or preparing it in inferior fashion. Given Earls has generally been mediocrity wrapped in pretentiousness, I suspect the latter was very much the case.

As far as your challenge goes, it is a meaningless offer. It is clear that, unless the steak you ordered tasted like turpentine, you were going to say it was better. You even claimed it was better before you had it. Likewise, I would go into Earls expecting bad food dressed up. I have enough self-awareness to realize that my preconceptions would have just as much impact on my opinion as yours did.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

But you can't remove that as part of the equation, because it's the whole reason for the debate. Of course if you remove that issue people are going to choose what tastes best. Some people won't care what tastes better if the situation it comes from isn't palatable.

There are vegans and vegetarians the world over that choose things objectively worse tasting because of their social stance.

Yes. And when the day comes we'll eat them too.