• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Chili

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
I prefer to prepare a batch of beans (Pinto) seperately. That way you can mixed the beans with the chili at the time that you are serving it.
Click to expand...

This is how chili and beans is supposed to be done. That way everyone can make theirs' to taste.
 
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
I prefer to prepare a batch of beans (Pinto) seperately. That way you can mixed the beans with the chili at the time that you are serving it.
Click to expand...

This is how chili and beans is supposed to be done. That way everyone can make theirs' to taste.
Click to expand...
anyone that tries to add legumes to my chili gets stabbed in the face
 
Hey dullard,

loup garou was only responding to someone who said that, "if it doesn't have beans, it isn't chili," which is actually quite wrong. Traditional chili is prepared without beans, but they can be added as a variation, like cheese or pasta. He isn't claiming that if it has beans, it isn't chili. I believe he said that he occasionally likes beans in his chili.


 
Originally posted by: kthroyer
Hey dullard,

loup garou was only responding to someone who said that, "if it doesn't have beans, it isn't chili," which is actually quite wrong. Traditional chili is prepared without beans, but they can be added as a variation, like cheese or pasta. He isn't claiming that if it has beans, it isn't chili. I believe he said that he occasionally likes beans in his chili.
Click to expand...
I understand his point and I agree with his point. However, I'm attempting to make a different point that Loup Garou so far has been unwilling or unable to listen to. Chili without beans is basically enchilada sauce. Yes, it is a form of a chili, but it is more properly called an enchilada sauce (there is substantial overlap here). Beans are what will definitively distinguish between the two.

Here is the same argument in different words to (hopefully) take out some of the anger and bias:
[*]A cat walks by.
[*]ATOT debates whether it is a cat or whether it is a mammal.
[*]I say don't call it a mammal, it is more correct to call it a cat.
[*]Loup Garou states (correctly, but 100% missing my the point) that yes it is a mammal.
[*]I state that it has all the features of a cat, thus it is a cat.
[*]Loup Garou states that is has all the features of a mammal, thus it is a mammal.
[*]We go back and forth where I try to convince him that it is more proper to call it a cat than a mammal.
[*]I get nowhere. Yes, Loup Garou is correct that it is a mammal. However, that really isn't as specific as we can be. I say it is correct to call it a cat. In fact, it is better to call it a cat when it is a cat and don't call it a mammal.

Yes, it is chili without beans, but it is better to call it a sauce. Put beans in it and it is no longer a sauce and it is only chili. So don't call it a chili when it is a sauce because a sauce is more specific and a better term to use.
Originally posted by: loup garou
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Click to expand...
I really don't know what you mean by that. Could you please elaborate.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
I understand his point and I agree with his point. However, I'm attempting to make a different point that Loup Garou so far has been unwilling or unable to listen to. Chili without beans is basically enchilada sauce. Yes, it is a form of a chili, but it is more properly called an enchilada sauce (there is substantial overlap here). Beans are what will definitively distinguish between the two.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. First, I've never had a enchilada sauce that tasted like a typical chili. Second, when I have had enchiladas with a sauce that tasted like chili, the sauce was called chili sauce (thinned out chili), not enchilada sauce. Three, chili is typically much thicker anyway and not considered a sauce at all. Fourth, I think it would be more accurate to argue that an enchilada sauce with meat (many enchilada sauces do NOT have meat) is a chili, not that chili without beans is an enchilada sauce. Hence the term "chili sauce" that most Mexican restaurants use when describing such a sauce.
 
with beans or without, chili ain't no sauce. It ain't soup either.


You can make chili sauce, and you can make chili soup. Neither one is chili.

 
REAL chili doesn't have beans in it. Beans were added later by those who didn't have enough meat to feed everyone.

I prefer chili with beans, though I had to vote for no beans based on the definition. 😀

Some of the best chili has multiple types of beans. I prefer a chili with Light and Dark Red Kidney Beans, Northern Beans, Red Beans, and a can of corn. Then I season it with 6 tablespoons of chili powder, a minced jalepeno, garlic, onion (all sauteed with the meat), ground cumin, and about 2 tablespoons of red hot indian chili powder that I got from an international food store.

Once you get all that mixed together and cooking, you can add tomato juice to dilute the hotness to your liking....then cook it down for about 2-4 hours at a simmer. The end result is pretty smokin' and it's pretty easy to make enough of this stuff in one batch to last at least 4 days... (lunch and dinner 😀)
 
there should be an option for meat or not.
i'm no vegitarian, but i had vegan chili with TVP instead of beef.... it was actually better that way. :Q
 
Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
there should be an option for meat or not.
i'm no vegitarian, but i had vegan chili with TVP instead of beef.... it was actually better that way. :Q
Click to expand...

Ya know... I had thought of adding that question.

However, based on the beans or no beans drama... I don't think I'll open that can of worms... lol
 
Originally posted by: theknight571
Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
there should be an option for meat or not.
i'm no vegitarian, but i had vegan chili with TVP instead of beef.... it was actually better that way. :Q
Click to expand...

Ya know... I had thought of adding that question.

However, based on the beans or no beans drama... I don't think I'll open that can of worms... lol
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: kthroyer
Hey dullard,

loup garou was only responding to someone who said that, "if it doesn't have beans, it isn't chili," which is actually quite wrong. Traditional chili is prepared without beans, but they can be added as a variation, like cheese or pasta. He isn't claiming that if it has beans, it isn't chili. I believe he said that he occasionally likes beans in his chili.
Click to expand...
I understand his point and I agree with his point. However, I'm attempting to make a different point that Loup Garou so far has been unwilling or unable to listen to. Chili without beans is basically enchilada sauce. Yes, it is a form of a chili, but it is more properly called an enchilada sauce (there is substantial overlap here). Beans are what will definitively distinguish between the two.

Here is the same argument in different words to (hopefully) take out some of the anger and bias:
[*]A cat walks by.
[*]ATOT debates whether it is a cat or whether it is a mammal.
[*]I say don't call it a mammal, it is more correct to call it a cat.
[*]Loup Garou states (correctly, but 100% missing my the point) that yes it is a mammal.
[*]I state that it has all the features of a cat, thus it is a cat.
[*]Loup Garou states that is has all the features of a mammal, thus it is a mammal.
[*]We go back and forth where I try to convince him that it is more proper to call it a cat than a mammal.
[*]I get nowhere. Yes, Loup Garou is correct that it is a mammal. However, that really isn't as specific as we can be. I say it is correct to call it a cat. In fact, it is better to call it a cat when it is a cat and don't call it a mammal.

Yes, it is chili without beans, but it is better to call it a sauce. Put beans in it and it is no longer a sauce and it is only chili. So don't call it a chili when it is a sauce because a sauce is more specific and a better term to use.
Originally posted by: loup garou
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Click to expand...
I really don't know what you mean by that. Could you please elaborate.
Click to expand...
Sauce != enchilada sauce.

The rest of that post is just ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Originally posted by: dullard
I understand his point and I agree with his point. However, I'm attempting to make a different point that Loup Garou so far has been unwilling or unable to listen to. Chili without beans is basically enchilada sauce. Yes, it is a form of a chili, but it is more properly called an enchilada sauce (there is substantial overlap here). Beans are what will definitively distinguish between the two.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. First, I've never had a enchilada sauce that tasted like a typical chili. Second, when I have had enchiladas with a sauce that tasted like chili, the sauce was called chili sauce (thinned out chili), not enchilada sauce. Three, chili is typically much thicker anyway and not considered a sauce at all. Fourth, I think it would be more accurate to argue that an enchilada sauce with meat (many enchilada sauces do NOT have meat) is a chili, not that chili without beans is an enchilada sauce. Hence the term "chili sauce" that most Mexican restaurants use when describing such a sauce.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Like I said, dullard is the only person I've ever heard of who considers chili without beans enchilada sauce.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top