Boneless Wings Can Have Bones, Declare Committed Textualists
There has been a heated debate raging in the food industry lately, revolving around the definition of „boneless wings.“ While most people assume that boneless wings are, well, boneless, a group of committed textualists are challenging this conventional wisdom.
The Argument
The crux of the argument put forth by these committed textualists is that the term „boneless wings“ refers to the type of meat used, rather than the presence or absence of bones. According to this interpretation, boneless wings can still have bones in them, as long as the meat comes from the wing portion of the chicken.
This interpretation has sparked outrage among consumers who have come to expect boneless wings to be bone-free. However, the committed textualists argue that a strict reading of the term „boneless wings“ does not preclude the presence of bones in the meat.
Legal Precedent
Supporters of the committed textualists point to legal precedent to bolster their argument. They argue that the term „boneless wings“ is not a legal designation and therefore should not be constrained by the common understanding of what constitutes boneless meat.
They further assert that the term „boneless wings“ has become so ingrained in popular culture that it has taken on a broader meaning beyond its literal definition. Therefore, they argue that consumers should not be surprised to find bones in their boneless wings, as long as the meat is sourced from the wing portion of the chicken.
The Implications
If the committed textualists‘ interpretation gains traction, it could have significant implications for the food industry. Restaurants that currently serve boneless wings may have to rethink their menus and relabel their dishes to reflect the presence of bones in the meat.
Consumers, too, will have to adjust their expectations when ordering boneless wings, as they may no longer be able to assume that the meat will be bone-free. This could lead to confusion and frustration among diners who have come to rely on the term „boneless wings“ as a shorthand for bone-free chicken wings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate over whether boneless wings can have bones is far from over. The committed textualists continue to make their case, while opponents argue for a more common-sense interpretation of the term „boneless wings.“ Only time will tell which side will prevail in this contentious food fight.
FAQs
Q: Are boneless wings actually boneless?
A: According to committed textualists, boneless wings can still contain bones as long as the meat comes from the wing portion of the chicken.
Q: How should consumers navigate this issue when ordering boneless wings?
A: Consumers should be aware of the differing interpretations of the term „boneless wings“ and ask servers or restaurant staff about the presence of bones in the meat before ordering.
Q: Will restaurants be required to relabel their boneless wing dishes if the committed textualists‘ interpretation gains traction?
A: It is possible that restaurants may have to relabel their dishes to reflect the presence of bones in the meat, if the committed textualists‘ interpretation becomes widely accepted.
