A few things:

A) You should read this article about American cheese:

https://www.seriouseats.com/2016/07/whats-really-in-american-cheese.html

It's not gourmet, but it gets a bad rap -- it's easily the best type of cheese for a certain type of cheeseburger.

B) Louis Lunch broils their burgers in a custom upright broiler they've been using since day one. Their burgers definitely aren't steamed.

C) Pressing burgers during cooking is a no-no, but pressing the beef onto the griddle before it starts cooking creates a magical layer of crust on the beef that you can't get through any other method.

I'm a little more interested after the trailer. I like the idea of the robot being an alien, you can go so many ways with that. Also I was wondering when the doctor would show up. My only beef is MOST of this trailer consist of the Robinsons dealing with nothing but events that deal with getting their ship unstuck from nature, in a world or worlds that very much resemble earth. It is just trope after trope with the ship stick in snow..ice..water..sinking..over a cliff. Very little alien life present or much of an alien world.

In fact it is pretty ridiculous for a family who says they are "lost", they seem to have landed on a perfectly good M class planet which are near impossible odds.

Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"

Yep, no marinades here too when cooking a good cut of beef. My fav is a nice grilled Porterhouse. About the only thing I marinate is beef strips i've cut up from a roast to dry for beef jerky.

I don't have any beefs with my credit card - I just don't like how having a decent credit rating is basically forced on society to get - a job (in some cases like my job working at a software company), to rent a home to sleep in (instead of your friends couch or the street). They got your balls on this - real "free" Amerikkka, real free....

I think that's a good question to be asking, but one that only time can answer.
Not involving congress in an act of war though, definitely not good, no matter who does it or why or how good it turns out. You don't want that precedent set when President Kanye West wants to bomb Paris over fashion beef in 2021, do you?

Watch further, particularly his videos on authoritarian regimes. His issue is that controlling language with force is a hallmark of classic far left regimes (ie. Lenin/Stalin's Russia, Mao's China etc), so his beef is not only with the uni, it's with the government and the deluded (or worse, calculated) morons who think that state sanctioned and enforced speech is a "good thing".

He has spent decades studying authoritarianism and makes compelling arguments as to why the current "SJWs" are almost identical to the precursors of other authoritarian regimes.

I don't ask anyone to take anything said at face value, but Peterson does the due diligence for his arguments, and will often defer answering a question if he doesn't think he can offer a well reasoned response. I've yet to see a single video where he has said anything negative about trans people (as opposed to saying negative things about a government law to force language), yet he is described as a homophobe because it's far easier to label him to discredit him than to actually listen to what he is saying.

@Jinx
the whole jordan peterson thing confuses me as well,though i do not know if for the same reasons.

i understand his argument on language,and it's uses,prefixes etc etc.ok,i get that.what i do not really get is his objection to c-160.

on the surface,his argument seems to suggest that it is about criminalization of pronoun usage,which,if true,i could understand his objection,but how i read c-160 that is not the case at all.

the new addendum appears to only add to already existing laws on the books to protect a subset of people that were in need of at least SOME protection.

his argument seems to be ripped out of the pages of a minority report type abuse,but not anything that is actually in practice.

now this is not necessarily un-warranted.there have been many instances where well intentioned laws were perverted to produce something entirely not expected.
see:14th amendment and the creation of the corporation,an amendment set in place to protect newly freed,land owning slaves.

but to extrapolate an addendum,to already existing law,and make the case of future abuse,with little or no evidence.is a pretty thin argument.

in my opinion,dr petersons only real gripe,and valid argument,is against the university of toronto,and how they handled the situation.

i have watched a number of dr petersons videos on language,and the psychology behind language,and the societal and cultural impacts of language,and even the abuses that can arise with the misuse of language and the inevitable conflicts that can arise.

i have also seen peterson speak to a group of protesters and have watched them settle down and actually have a conversation with him.

so i think peterson has a beef with the university,and not the addendum to an already existing law,although that is not his contention.i simply do not see where he can take it to that extremity,when there is little evidence to support it.

i dunno..seems kind of a waste of time in many aspects to me.

EDIT: Based on past experience with his claims, that's not presenting the science, it's completely misrepresenting it. It's what this guy does, he cherry picks someone else's data, totally misrepresents the study and it's conclusions, and makes huge leaps and extrapolations to say things like 'eating meat is now proven to be the same carcinogenic cancer risk as being a chain smoker'....but anyone who can understand the study he cites, limited to highly processed cured meats and mentioning the levels of possible carcinogens was not measured but are likely infinitesimal, can see it said no such thing, and didn't even come close to implying it. That type of misuse of data gets my goat....I think lying about science and data are crimes against humanity, and I wish they were actionable.

Bullshit, that's not true at all. My wife eats cheese about 3-4 times a year, and enjoys it those times. Same with beef. No addiction cycle exists with that long of a period that I'm aware of.
Food preference/taste is in no way the same as addiction, and any "doctor" telling you differently is a liar.
Habits and addictions are different concepts, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently.

Meh, I would have had to watch more than 15 seconds of that video to really reply thoughtfully to your comment. Turns out, 15 seconds is all it took to realize the presenter was full of shit.

:-)

I feel no shame for eating cheese. I feel no shame for eating the eggs that my backyard chickens produce. I don't even feel shame when I occasionally have to wring one for getting sick or old...I just don't relish the necessity.
I didn't feel shame when I ate the freezer full of beef from the cow my kids had named. (Man-Eating-Cow, if you're interested)

I do have shame in my life. Any life lived fully and introspectively will include some moments of shame. But none of those moments have anything to do with consuming the food my body needs to survive. Or even the foods I don't need to survive...but really enjoy.

I think a lot of people are down on American cheese based on its worst, cheapest variants. *Good* American cheese is, hands down, the best cheese for a cheeseburger. I mean, there's no debate there. It has a mild -- but not overwhelming -- cheesy flavour, and it has the perfect gooey consistency that melds with the beef in the best way possible.

http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/07/whats-really-in-american-cheese.html

Please expand, because while I can see that he's picking and choosing some easy targets for criticism (over the top SJW stuff) that may not be representative of the at-large "Progressive" agenda, nothing really jumped out at me as a "straw man" argument.

I'm a somewhat conservative-leaning person (at least on issues that I think should be in the realm of government), but I feel like I have a legitimate beef with some of what the party that is "supposed" to cater to conservatives actually does in government; what the GOP seems to present as its "platform".

This guy is a liberal-leaning person who feels like he has a legitimate beef with some of what his party thinks their platform should be. And I tend to agree with a lot of what he's saying.

And I would hope that even if I didn't agree with anything that he was saying, I'd be all for protecting his right to say his piece. Some people/groups test our patience for that, like the Westboro Baptist Church -- ostensibly a crazy right-wing organization that just wants to get their message (of hate and bigotry) out there. But in reality they are just a bunch of con men who stir up trouble in order to provoke violent or other responses that they can start litigation over. The point is, there are good ways and bad ways to deal with idiots like that.

Threats to free speech from the other side of spectrum are much more subtle, and therefore perhaps more insidious and dangerous. For example, at about 3:00 in the video where he lists "racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and islamophobia" as "meaningless buzzwords". For many people, those words are NOT meaningless, but real, concrete problems that they actually have to face in their lives. Problems many orders of magnitude more significant and weighty than any of the minutia that can make or ruin our average day. Unfortunately, those words do tend to carry a lot less weight when they are bandied about willy-nilly every time we disagree with someone for any reason.

I guess, we all really do have more things in common with each other than things that separate us from each other. The frequent and extreme factionalizing and partisanship today seems very counter productive. And there's plenty of blame for that to go around.

Dr Phil, the Beef Master has been added as a related post - related requested by Fantomas on that post.

I would have totally thumped on the ass beef who yelled "jump, you coward".

In a perfect world, I would have thrown him over, but we live in this imperfect one where ignorant gimps are protected by laws. Such a shame.