/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>Eating meat in 2021
ngmi

>ribeye
>kosher salt (coarse AF), nothing else
>start up grill
>sear both sides
>get internal temp to 125 F (convert this to eurotard units if you need to)
>let steak rest 15min

ezpz

Get a big ribeye boneless ribeye, I'm guessing around 300-450g, make sure it's at least 1"/25mm thick. Ribeye is pretty forgiving due to a good amount of intramuscular fat. Look up how to reverse sear. Also, there's no space before question marks in English, froggy.

>>15665669
>t.cow

>>15665675
is the ribeye kosher??

Get a ribeye steak. Figure on 1lb of steak for a male, 1/2 or 3/4ths of a pound for a woman.
Let it rest until room temp.
Season both sides with sea salt, and pepper. I also like a bit of garlic powder, but that's optional.
Grill over med-high heat for 2-3 mins a side, or when 125F is reached for a nice medium rare.
Remove the steak from the grill and place it on your cutting board to rest for 5 minutes.
Cut, serve, enjoy.

>>15665689
who cares

>>15665695
oy but the salt is kosher why isnt the ribeye?

>>15665691
>>15665684
>>15665675
so ribeye it is then
also, as all the meat here are frozen
how to thaw it, is it ok to just toss it into a bowl of water ?
and I only have a nonstick skillet, doesn't care much about my health and carcinogens tho, is it ok to use it ?

>>15665710
Salt doesn't have to be Kosher, I prefer coarse slat rubbed on my steaks though. Kosher salt is all I have right now

>>15665669
cope

also the fuck is kosher salt, is it a jew things ?
probably don't have it since we genocided the jews years ago, just using regular salt won't be a problem right ?

>>15665742
just use coarse salt, kosher salt is coarse and iodine free, great for sucking moisture out of meat. It's common in the US

>>15665747
alright, thanks anon

>>15665734

Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities that do not and should not provide a logical foundation for our behavior. This means it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet certain non-human animals do. So it is probably not useful to consider the behavior of stoats, alligators and other predators when making decisions about our own behavior.
The argument for modeling human behavior on non-human behavior is unclear to begin with, but if we're going to make it, why shouldn't we choose to follow the example of the hippopotamus, ox or giraffe rather than the shark, cheetah or bear? Why not compare ourselves to crows and eat raw carrion by the side of the road? Why not compare ourselves to dung beetles and eat little balls of dried feces? Because it turns out humans really are a special case in the animal kingdom, that's why. So are vultures, goats, elephants and crickets. Each is an individual species with individual needs and capacities for choice. Of course, humans are capable of higher reasoning, but this should only make us more sensitive to the morality of our behavior toward non-human animals. And while we are capable of killing and eating them, it isn't necessary for our survival. We aren't lions, and we know that we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences.

>>15665826
Based copypasta.

>>15665826
>we know that we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences.
I can

>>15665848
you are philosophically a brain dead peon

>>15665826
What if I believe animalistic intake is a necessary part of a healthy diet, and that human life is always valued higher over any other organism's life?
gay niggas

>>15666067
the fuck want to have a cat sized catgirl
you can't bang that

>>15665826
Humanity needs animals the same way animals need each other. You are not above that even if you make computers and drive in cars.
We take lives all the time, whether its in livestock or urban expansion, or in the multi billion dollar crop protection industry. Just because you waste the bodies doesn't make it any more right.

There is no such thing as universal morality. Even killing=bad is not an objective fact.

P.S All your rice is grown with the assistance of armies of tens of thousands of domesticated ducks. You will never defeat the duck army. You will never defeat domesticated animals.


Cope

>>15666094

Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
It is pertinent to note that the idea of perfect veganism is a non-vegan one. Such demands for perfection are imposed by critics of veganism, often as a precursor to lambasting vegans for not measuring up to an externally-imposed standard. That said, the actual and applied ethics of veganism are focused on causing the least possible harm to the fewest number of others. It is also noteworthy that the accidental deaths caused by growing and harvesting plants for food are ethically distinct from the intentional deaths caused by breeding and slaughtering animals for food. This is not to say that vegans are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but rather to point out that these deaths do not violate the vegan ethics stated above.

>>15666067
From an ethical perspective, it is generally agreed that one individual's right to choice ends at the point where exercising that right does harm to another individual. Therefore, while it might be legal and customary to needlessly kill and eat animals, it is not ethical.
Simply because a thing is condoned by law or society does not make it ethical or moral. Looked at differently, it is logically inconsistent to claim that it is wrong to hurt animals like cats and dogs and also to claim that eating animals like pigs and chickens is a matter of choice, since we do not need to eat them in order to survive. So it is clear then, that eating meat is only a matter of choice in the most superficial sense because it is both ethically and morally wrong to do so.

Fry up some Long, fiburous veggies like asparagus in the pan after the stesk. make some cheddar mash too.

>>15666117
Animals are not individuals. Animals are not worth as much as humans. Not that that necessitates cruelty, but if me killing a chicken and using it's flesh to fuel my body is a better resource than fermented soy products, then I'd prefer killing.

>>15666112
If you actually want to be an actual benefit to your environment, you will abandon consumerism as much as possible and take up homesteading.
Doing the "least bad" is still bad.
You claim livestock can ONLY be a detriment to the environment, where I have actually witnessed the exact opposite be true. My livestock creates life and nourishes everything around it. It's incredible that I get to partake in the nourishment they provide both alive and dead.

And what life do you create, what environment do you enrich? You do nothing but read statistics and continue to be a slave to the supermarket while you cower in your concrete urban coffin.

I also love how vegans will never talk about their duck grown rice. None of you fuckers have an argument. Big fat fucking cope.

>>15665656
Make sure it's some good quality beef or you'll be disappointed. We're spoiled in the first world with consistently decent beef, but I've purchased steaks in China and even Eastern Europe and they're severely lacking compared to the American Beef I was used to.

>>15666145
>nice opinion, man
Why are you so ethically and logically bankrupt? You have no other argument than "I'm better than it so I can kill it". By your own logic, we should kill and eat you because you're obviously a lesser, low IQ creature.


All animals are intellectually and emotionally sophisticated relative to their own species, and many have thoughts and emotions more complex than those of young human children or the mentally disabled. Even so, it is not logical or equitable to withhold ethical considerations from individuals whom we imagine think or feel differently than we do.
We uphold the basic rights of humans who do not reach certain intellectual and emotional benchmarks, so it is only logical that we should uphold these rights for all sentient beings. Denying them to non-human animals is base speciesism and, therefore, ethically indefensible. Further, it is problematic to assert that intelligence and emotional capacity exist on a linear scale where insects occupy one end and humans occupy the other. For example, bees are experts in the language of dance and communicate all sorts of things with it. Should humans who cannot communicate through interpretive dance be considered less intelligent than bees? Finally, even if an intellectual or emotional benchmark were justification for killing a sentient being, there is no scientific support for the claim that a capacity for intelligence or emotion equals a capacity for suffering. In fact, there is a great deal of scientific support for just the opposite; that because non-human animals do not possess the ability to contextualize their suffering as humans do, that suffering is much greater.

>>15666165

Food scarcity is an argument for veganism, not against it. As the world’s population grows and more people are able to afford meat, less food is available overall. This is because we filter protein and energy-rich crops like soy and grain through animals at a substantial loss before eating them. Depending on the numbers you want to trust and the type of animal it comes from, each pound of meat requires four to thirteen pounds of feed to produce. By switching to a plant-based diet, the farms that presently grow that feed are able to grow food for people instead.
In all, roughly 40% of the world's arable land is used for food production, while only a quarter of that food is for human consumption. The rest, a staggering 30% of the world's arable land, is used to produce animal feed and commands a third of the world's fresh water. Worse, the meat resulting from this industrialized animal agriculture is not divided evenly. For instance, Americans eat 270 lbs. of meat a year on average, while Bangladeshis eat 4 lbs. Meanwhile, much of the world gets no food at all or raises livestock feed for export to countries with a high demand for meat, creating an unequal burden of production versus consumption between the poorest and richest people on the planet. This is why even conservative researchers are calling for a global decrease in the consumption of meat, while most are calling for the widespread adoption of a vegetarian or vegan diet in order to create and sustain food security for the world's growing population. Widespread adoption of a plant-based diet would leave the Earth's arable land and fresh water for use in the production of food crops for people and not feed crops for livestock.

>>15666194
Wouldn't it help food insecurity more to just idk... grow your own food instead of getting food shipped in from all four corners of the world?

Oh wait. What if you live in a temperate climate like me, and you can't get bananas and quinoa? Don't get me wrong, I garden, I grow as much of my own crops as possible. But on a vegan diet I would rely more heavily on imports.

Also idk if you know about regenerative ag and how it doesn't rely on government subsidies, or do you only listen to vegan approved propaganda?

Again, you don't produce any of your own food. You are a huge burden as a useless consumer, literally just as bad as a meat eater.

Again, you fail to address that your rice is grown with the assistance of tens of thousands of domesticated ducks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw4c5RhRYMY&ab_channel=GlobalNews

>>15665656
Make sure it has a lot of grease, you must grill it from that side. Also (You) must start a fire, but cook with the embers veeery slowly.

>>15666112
A feedlot is not the same as pasture. Trad pastures feed the land with all the shit herds make. Look at Dehesas.


Even if everyone go veg, that would only make room, at long term, for more billions of ~~niggers~~ people. What we truly need are more protected forests, with no human activity at all. Also less population, specially in the third world.

>>15665669
imagine how boring their sex is

ribeye seasoned with garlic, onion, and chili powder

>>15667023
Based tranny dabbing on the 'gans