351
submitted 7 months ago by Pencilnoob@lemmy.world to c/196
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] activ8r@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago

So they really are just chicken nuggets for adults then...
Seriously, what the fuck are you guys doing over there if "boneless wings" are neither boneless nor wings?!

[-] EmptySlime 11 points 7 months ago

To be fair, calling them "wings" was to my knowledge more about linking them to how chicken wings as a dish were prepared and presented than a statement on where the meat came from on the bird.

I don't know much about this case in particular but it fits into a long pattern of activist conservative judges basically legislating from the bench to protect business interests. So it's unsurprising that one of them would basically say "no one actually believes the wing part, so there's no reason for them to believe the boneless part either, and therefore there's no liability if there are bones in the product."

[-] BigPotato@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

You say "over there" but this is an Ohio ruling. That'd be like judging all of Europe for Belarusian rulings.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
351 points (100.0% liked)

196

17085 readers
804 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS