3 ms·

Any confusion can easily be resolved by asking the person offering to sell you one what it is. I do not need terminological rules between me and fast food vendo

Any confusion can easily be resolved by asking the person offering to sell you one what it is. I do not need terminological rules between me and fast food vendors; if I buy a 'muffin hot dog parfait' and it turns out not to be the tasty dish I was expecting, I may complain about it but I have the choice to just not go there again. I support the idea of truth in advertising laws but I think they should be limited to factual claims. Courts shouldn't entertain lawsuits over such silly things either.

stickfigure 3mo ago
I am shocked to learn there is no dog in a hot dog. Calling my lawyer...
- inigyou 3mo ago
  In Germany if they applied the laws consistently it would actually be illegal to call it a hot dog if it wasn't dog. Supermarket had to rename "chilli beans" to "kidney beans in chilli sauce" because there's no bean species called a chilli bean
  - ben_w 3mo ago
    When rules like this lead to complaints about "veggie burgers", part of me wants to counter that hamburgers neither contain ham nor burgers (etymology: the food is named after the German city of Hamburg, origin of city name lost to time but literal translation of original name compatible with "Castle (Burg) belonging to person called Hamma").
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      I don't think "burger" is protected. Thankfully.
      - ben_w 3mo ago
        Thankfully, the ban was walked back. But it did get voted through in some stages: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w5v75deewo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w5v75deewo
shevy-java 3mo ago
Patting the beef?