Which buffet is a better value: Indian buffet, or Chinese buffet?

Whichever you eat more of, I guess. It's more of a numbers thing with buffets, either way you're getting meat and spices and everything that a medieval peasant dreams of.

>>8479222
Whatever costs less.

File: filtered-groundnut-oil-postline-naturals-500x500.jpg (41KB, 500x500px)

41KB, 500x500px

>>8479222
If you stick to the higher value protein and avoid the starch, chinese every time.

Chinese is quick cooked, so needs to be better quality like king prawn and better chicken and beef cuts.

Indian curries are traditionally stewed for hours to make cheap cuts palatable.

>>8479222
Which ever one has bigger seats to fit your fat ass comfortably in the chairs / booth

>>8479230
Wrong
>>8479264
Also wrong

The correct answer is busy ones, because they have to make and turn food more often, therefor making it fresher and less shitty.

>>8479222
Chinese, easily. Indian lunch buffets tend to run about $10-$15 where I live, while I've yet to see a Chinese lunch buffet break $10. Also, Indian buffets tend to be mainly veggies and maybe some chicken, while Chinese ones have beef, pork, and seafood.

Then again, Indian ones tend to be closer to actual Indian food, while Chinese ones tend to have as much in common with it as the French fries they for some reason invariably serve.

There are no Indians around here and Im glad.

>>8479222
>go to my local buffet
>sweet&spicy wings day
>the guy before me loads his plate with rice
>only takes a few other things
why do these people exist?

>>8479321
>I'm a Jew, the post.

>>8479329
>pork
>Jew
Oy vey...

Indian buffets have less meat options which reduces food illness risks and makes it harder to eat to break even.

>>8479321
if you pay less than 10 dollar for an all you can eat buffet you should ask yourself how inferior the produce has to be for this to be possible, but then again, if you were neither fat nor stupid you would avoid "all you can eat" as most people beyond the age of 15 do

>>8479348
Probably. But here we are.

So which one are you, anon?

>>8479339
>Indian buffets
>reduces food illness risks
dude, about the poo thing...

>>8479381
as indicated, i havent been at one since my early highschool days and i would rather eat a bread with butter than eat mysterymeat in shitty sauces for 10$

>>8479476
Ah, so you're just the kind of person whose self esteem is so low he has to try and establish superiority on an anonymous internet message board. Sorry, bro, that must be rough.

File: image.jpg (112KB, 659x732px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 659x732px

>>8479390
I very much doubt OP is in India.
Regional cuisines do not carry the same health risks as their indigenous countries.
Also remember white middle class Americans shit themselves in grocery stores yet a fine upstanding, freedom loving individual such as yourself will quite happily gorge his fat, diabetes ridden body in Olive Garden or Chipotle.
Do the maths, anon.

>>8479518
>I very much doubt OP is in India
irrelevant
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537652/Swindon-takeaway-chef-prepared-food-wiping-bottom-bare-hands-doesn-t-use-toilet-paper-cultural-reasons.html

>>8479222
Indian food is a lot more long simmering dishes less likely to suffer from sitting out in a steam table than the quick cooked dishes so popular in Chinese cuisine. So I'd say Indian food is better suited for a buffet.

Chinese
since there's only one Indian resturant in my town and they don't have a lunch buffet
and they're dicks

File: 1472027435054.gif (2MB, 230x175px)

2MB, 230x175px

>>8479539
>he trusts the faily mail

>>8479539
That's one incident and the owner was a paki not an Indian.
Also a DailyMail article so probably untrue anyway.

>>8479539
>Dailymail
Do you also go to buzzfeed to get your news?

>>8479602
>one incident
not an argument. there may be more similar cases that just haven't been discovered yet
> owner was a paki not an Indian
still not an argument. there are many foreign restaurants who are run by people that are not actually from that specific country
>DailyMail article so probably untrue anyway
okay, i'll give you that one. still doesn't mean that it's guaranteedly untrue

>>8479276
This is there biggest lie ever. Indian isn't meat heavy but using off or cheap cuts is unheard of. Some curries have a long cooking time bit that's not to make the meat palatable.

Another myth is spices are used to cover up the taste of bad meat or sanitize it. Spices in Indian have 3 purposes. Flavor, color and medicinal/digestive properties.

>>8479615
>muh anecdotal evidence is an argument
>your rejection of muh anecdotal evidence is not an argument
I'd direct you back to /pol, but honestly, I don't think even they want you.

>>8479644
>muh
kill yourself
>anecdotal
you w0t?

>>8479326
So that you can have more idiots stuffing on carbs and leaving you with the better stuff.

>>8479222
Well one smells like Indian people and is full of Indians, so not that one.

>>8479504
I scrolled the thread and was surprised nobody pointed out that you will eat inferior / mysterious food if you pay less than 10$ in an all you can eat environment, it should be consensus desu, id much much rather eat at something like mcdonalds or quite literally a bread with butter compared to a buffet in this pricerange. Its your life and your choices, i am neither interested in converting you, nor am i interested in your life, i just derive pleasure from randomly discussing things on an indonesian goatmilking board while i sit on the couch

>>8479518
No one "middle class" goes to a fucking Walmart and shits themselves, those are trailer trash

>>8479743
Ah, so you're just the kind of person whose self esteem is so low he has to try and correct peoples' perception of himself on an anonymous internet message board.