Would you eat my fried chicken anons :c

Are you serving it on a rusty old tin can lid?

>I oven baked it in a tblspoon of butter then th
Not fried

Hey look I can do that too

>he's never had oven fried chicken

Eh free plates are free

My fried chicken is not a traditional dish

so then what would you call a food item that is literally chicken that has literally been fried, but not battered and not *deep* fried?

Pan fried chicken breast

...

Pan frying is a type of frying. If you pan fried something it is accurate to say that you "fried" it. Similarly, chicken breast can accurately be called simply "chicken".

Thus, pan fried chicken breast can accurately be called fried chicken. It is chicken that has been fried.

No because fried chicken is an actual dish, where pan frying chicken is a method of cooking said chicken.

So if I give you food that I have cooked in oil in a pan and tell you that it's fried, will you reply "this isn't fried, it's PAN fried!"

And what if I give you a chicken breast and call it chicken, will you say "this isn't chicken, it's chicken BREAST!"

Technically he would be correct to do that, as much as you'll call it autism for using the correct cooking terminology on a cooking forum

>it's technically correct to say that pan frying is not frying, and chicken breast is not chicken
This isn't autism, it's outright retardation. Autists tend to be meticulous and accurate.

looks positively perfectly scrumptious user!
how would you rate my homemade gourmet pie that I just made right now?

Id join/10 user :>

I would eat you OP

If the fat comes halfway up the chicken or more, then it is pan fried.
If you only use a couple of tablespoons of fat, then it is sautéed.

both are frying.

Yes, because fried chicken is a literal dish you retard

fried chicken is the name of a dish, and it is also a description of an object. the fact that the name of the dish exists does not preclude you from using that phrase to describe the respective object.

Then why do we differentiate boiled eggs and poached eggs

The plate is the most appetizing thing about his dish. I'd take a bite of it before his dried out worst cut of chicken topped with watery onions any day.

yes, it's a dish consisting of chicken that has been fried. For example, see OP

convention. there's not a hard, universal, logical rule as to how things are named when it comes to food. it's not like boiled eggs are always boiled anyway - sometimes they're poached.

Google it for yourself m8.
Then poached is a useless term since they're just boiled.

the chicken wasn't dry (to my surprise) -- was shit frozen brand chicken breast though.

>Then poached is a useless term since they're just boiled.
no, it's a useful term because it describes something that is cooked through in broth or water at a sub-boiling temperature. the english language is completely full of words which have a fixed general meaning with different meanings in exceptional contexts. you have to accept fuzzy boundaries in terminology if you're gonna sleep at night. and if you were going to reject the ambiguity when it comes to fried chicken, the most logical thing to do would be to stipulate that the dish 'fried chicken' should be labelled 'deep fried battered chicken' or, more succinctly, 'kentucky fried chicken'.

lazy

I googled the definition of "fried" (an adjective) and "chicken" (a noun) and I assure you OP's photo shows fried chicken.

Then they should be called simmered eggs. And no. Historically it's been called fried chicken. Pan frying a chicken breast doesn't make it a well established dish all of a sudden. If a restaurant stated fried chicken on its menu and brought me, or anyone, a pan fried chicken breast, there'd be confusion and an upset customer.
You pan fried a chicken breast. It is technically fried, but it is not actual fried chicken, since that is a fairly common dish in the western world.

>It is technically fried
and it's also technically chicken. so you're technically wrong

lmgtfy.com/?q=Fried chicken

you've reached the point of being annoyingly obtuse so i'm not going to continue. fried chicken is clearly a subset of dishes which involve frying chicken. it shouldn't be a stretch to see that someone might call any dishes within that larger set fried chicken as well.

and where exactly does it say that chicken that has been fried is not fried chicken?

You can call it what you want, but you wouldn't convince anyone but yourselves that it's fried chicken.

this. It is chicken that has been fried, therefore it is fried chicken. get over yourselves you autistic fucks
>muh fried chicken elitism
>it's not apple juice it's crushed apple fruits

>You can call it what you want,
thanks for playing.

>chicken that is fried is not fried chicken because you claim that a large number of people think so

>being this retarded
the dish would have a description under it's listing saying something like:
A delicious pan fried chicken breast paired with caramelized onions and blah blah blah
Language is ambiguous. If someone says "fried chicken", sure the first image that pops in your head would be KFC's signature dish, but saying pan FRIED CHICKEN breast is not fried chicken is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

tl;dr kys please

Silly argument to have on a forum.

>:c

Kill yourself

>t. newfag
welcome to Veeky Forums, please leave

haven't learned how to reply yet, i take it.

I enjoy that someone(s) decided to argue with that guy for me, saved me some headache

t. OP

@9661750
Eat a bullet nigger

its not fried chicken

found the negroids. nothing triggers black rage quite like "fried chicken" that, while technically being legitimate fried chicken, is not what they expect.

Frying chicken =/= fried chicken

its not legit, people expect fried chicken to have crispy breading and be deep fried. that's like a tuna salad isn't just a dollop of tuna on a few lettuce leaves, even though that's technically a tuna salad

"X-ing Y =/= X-ed Y"
Well, grammatically you're absolutely correct. "X-ing Y" acts as a verb while "X-ed Y" acts as a noun.

However, the product produced by X-ing Y is that you get some X-ed Y. For example, if you engage in the act of frying chicken, the product is fried chicken.

Hope this helps

I can cook up some beef on spaghetti and call it stroganoff, but it ain't stroganoff son.

thanks for the kek
8/8 b8

I only eat chicken in tendie form

correct, one is a verb and one is a noun
but frying chicken does PRODUCE fried chicken

>ain't
ok, cleetus

your example is completely different. We are talking about a process that produces a dish named after that process. Frying chicken produces fried chicken, but putting beef on spaghetti is just meat and noodles.

that's because tuna salad doesn't use lettuce. your example is just a salad with tuna on it.
also it doesn't matter what people "expect". We are strictly talking about definitions.
see

its the same situation, and it is about what people expect.

>it doesn't matter what people "expect". We are strictly talking about definitions. see
did you even read the comment?

you're a clever fucker

thank you?

>newfag
Because I called it a forum?
Words don't matter, remember?

>missing the joke
well first of all, this website is an image-based bulletin board.
second, you obviously haven't lurked enough to realize Veeky Forums is for porn, arguing about pointless things, and memes. If you came here for anything else, you came to the wrong place.

and because I don't currently have the WebM, here's a helpful link for you.
youtube.com/watch?v=7_0WYrXPdj4

Most people define Fried Chicken as breaded, deep fried chicken. So you're wrong.

sigh, we are not discussing what most people think think the dish is, we are trying to get you people to realize that by the definition of "frying", OP's dish is literally "fried" chicken.
see going back to your expectation argument, when describing that dish I would probably still include the descriptor "pan" for pan fried chicken as to not confuse autists like yourself, but you cannot say pouring a bunch of oil in a pan and cooking a chicken breast in said oil does not, in fact, produce fried chicken.

Well, by the definition of salad, tuna on top of salad leaves is a tuna salad, just like chicken in a green salad is chicken salad. There may be multiple definitions of what salad means but that's the most popular. However, it still isn't tuna salad, because people reserve that somewhat generic term for a specific dish. Same deal with fried chicken

Technically that'd be baked and pan fried,
I will call that baked as it is the main cooking method.
I can accept it as a 'fried chicken' if you only use pan to fry it. Otherwise it is not fried.

interesting argument. After looking up the definition of salad I have changed my opinion on the matter, both examples are tuna salad. Just like OP's picture and KFC's signature chicken are both fried chicken.

also, who is this all powerful group of people that are controlling what specific dishes can be described using generic terms? nobody, that's why the terms are generic, they can be used to describe multiple dishes.
this is why any restaurant would have pictures or descriptions for their items (see ) and if you are like "THAT'S not what I would expect fried chicken to look like", you don't order it

I will argue this until we hit the bump limit

forgot this

I think it just depends on context, but it is really silly to continue arguing about the OP, but I think we are on the same page. It either is or isn't fried chicken/tuna salad depending on their expectations (e.g. it said 'fried chicken' on the menu but did not explain that it was pan fried chicken) or how stubborn they wanna be about it (e.g. it said 'fried chicken' and explained and showed a picture of the dish, but the customer is still butthurt when he orders it.)

So, it does somewhat depend on context but we are most definitely NOT on the same page because, like you said, the dish either is or is not fried chicken, but that condition does not, in any way, depend on someone's expectations. Purely based on the fact that frying means cooked in fat or oil, pan-frying is a type of frying so therefore the product of pan-frying is fried chicken, regardless of what people expect it to look like.

It WOULD be silly to still be arguing about this if it wasn't for the fact that this is the internet, more specifically Veeky Forums and this is what we do. I refuse to let the ignorance I have seen in this thread continue. Even if I don't convince even 1 person to adopt this viewpoint, at least I tried.

>autism.jpg
You've removed expectations from the equation, and that's the only way your argument works. But in reality, expectations are a real thing when you are talking about ordering food. Everyone itt who says the pan fried chicken is not real fried chicken has specific expectations about that phrase. You say to just ignore expectations, and all of a sudden, yes, it IS fried chicken.

So you are correct if expectations are magically ignored, but not correct in the real world where expectations actually do play a role in how things are perceived. That's why, by your own admission, you would convey that the 'fried chicken' was pan fried chicken somehow, in order to manage a person's expectations because of the use of the loaded phrase "fried chicken" which has specific connotations for a large part of the population.

wew. maybe that autism.jpg was for me.

I am not saying to "magically" ignore expectations, merely that based on the definition, pan-fried chicken is still technically fried chicken. regardless of how your average joe expects it to look.

In that example I was saying that I would only be sure to explicitly state how it was cooked so that only the most illiterate retard would think they were eating at KFC and try to return my dish for a refund.

I hope my picture helps and puts this argument to rest

I get your argument, and I think most people get it, that pan-fried chicken is a subset of fried chicken, technically. But that's if your point-of-view is like Mr Spock's. If your POV is a normal American, then you will first think of KFC type chicken upon hearing 'fried chicken'. Anyway, none of this matters because it's a trivial misunderstanding and it's not worth further argument, from my side at least. Perhaps someone else will pointlessly argue more in an autistic fashion.

at least you can see it was a misunderstanding. It's only pointless to argue if everyone is in agreement

Who wants a grilled cheese?

that's just cheese on a grill

at first i thought that was bread, now i'm questioning every decision i ever made that lead to me clicking on that picture

It's also a forum
and OP made fried chicken

That looks like a greasy fried egg with onions.

Would you eat my fried chicken? Was too lazy to make potato’s so I just ate it with leftover rice

I'd eat it. Though if you wanted to make it look more appealing you'd coat it in egg/milk, then flour, then you'd get a crispy golden brown look to it that wouldn't make it look like welfare chicken. i've prepared similar looking chicken in the oven and on the grill though, tastes a lot better than it looks. Would look better on a bed of rice or something.

Yes it's grilled cheese. Just like ops picture is fried chicken.

>reading comprehension
Please re-read your image. Retard.

What's wrong with it?

>taking the bait
Kys before you breed, please

I agree with one of those statements

Potato's
What the fuck dude

>Potato's
Nigga, what

yep. looks good. i love caramelized onions too.

What bait? Op fried chicken. That picture is grilled cheese