@arid.boucherie: Est ce que la charcuterie halal vaut la charcuterie traditionnelle ? Dites le moi ! #fyp #pourtoi #halalparis #charcuterie #boucherie

Arid boucherie
Arid boucherie
Open In TikTok:
Region: FR
Saturday 29 August 2026 17:19:57 GMT
85527
2881
69
84

Music

Download

Comments

mattzer99
Mattéo :
J’ai jamais compris le débat du Halal pas Halal pour les non musulmans, ça change absolument rien.
2026-08-31 15:58:51
59
goldsider
👑 GOLDSIDER 👑 :
Je la fesais a mes clients pas de sale amie que des gens bons
2026-08-29 17:44:34
24
autoecole_rsconduite
autoecole_rsconduite :
J’aimerai bien goûter ça et la dame et très sympathique
2026-08-29 19:57:14
20
clk232800
clk232800 :
bravo pour cette dame qui veut découvrir et donne son avis sans détour et chacun ces goût .
2026-08-30 12:25:23
97
rimk.fr.dz
😇rk😈 :
les gens pensent que la viande séchée où les jambons et traditionnel français sachant que ça a été importé de d'autres pays et donc c'était halal comme les merguez les saucisses et plein d'autres.. on peut pas dire que la saucisse est française sachant qu'elle a été importée et je parle de l'origine du produit et de qui la fait en premier et de qui la importer en France et aujourd'hui c'est vrai que les Français ils sont très forts dans ces produits comme les Italiens on peut dire les Espagnols mais à la base ça vient d'ailleurs la façon de faire et il y a des archives on peut pas dire que la merguez est française sachant qu'elle a été importée d'Algérie !!, avant de me répondre vérifier. 😌
2026-08-30 14:24:06
9
djazairiyya02
warda 🌸 :
Le jambon à la base c’est une méthode de cuisson/cuisine quoi, rien ne dit que c’est du porc obligatoirement
2026-08-31 16:17:09
13
tba5206
TBA :
9.90.- c’est donné ?!
2026-08-30 11:47:31
7
zouzou_zs30
Zouzou-Zs30 :
C’est vrai que il y’a quelques années la charcuterie halal c’était pas ouf mais dernièrement ça c’est grandement améliorer au point ou ont peu réellement appelé ça du jambon et franchement big respect à nos frères muslim qui ont travaillé les recettes perso je valide 👌
2026-08-31 18:29:07
13
monsieur_dey
monsieur_dey :
ils disent que ce n’est pas faux mais ce sont les premiers a dénaturer les autres recettes d’autres cultures mdrrr comme la sauce soja sucrée, pizza choco banane mdr
2026-08-30 13:22:19
26
sogrn38
So3836 :
2026-08-29 18:14:26
6
simcaoo7
simca94 :
Payer un sandwich 9,90 € de nos jour alors que les salaires non pas augmenté sa fait mal au dėrche , notre pays s’appauvie à une vitesse accélérée
2026-08-30 13:11:29
0
ehouimonamiii
ehouimonamiii :
Du jambon 😂😂😂😂😂
2026-08-29 18:38:12
1
totorina6115
totorina6115 :
j'ai testé pour pas être con même si jsuis archi contre l'égorgement beh la boucherie traditionnelle française est largement au dessus désolé
2026-08-31 15:24:16
0
lechat130000
le chat13 :
C'est la façon de le salé non? qu'on l'appelle jambon?
2026-08-30 17:53:25
2
el.soralisto
el.soralisto :
C’est comme ci t’appelais une cote de bœuf une cote de porc si c’est pas du porc c’est pas du jambon
2026-08-29 18:50:19
1
mon.surnom04
mon surnom :
Du coup le saucisson a l’âne c’est pas du porc du c’est pas du saucisson
2026-08-30 16:11:17
0
marlostainfield13
Marlo13001 :
j ai l habitude de manger les 2 il y a eu bcp d amélioration mais la vrai charcuterie c est autre chose
2026-08-31 20:36:40
1
goldsider
👑 GOLDSIDER 👑 :
Dis Pasque y’a des gens bons ici
2026-08-29 17:44:16
1
camgarnier22
Cam 🌞🌚✨ :
déjà c'est beaucoup moins gras et je trouve très goutu donc ici c'est que halal 🥰
2026-09-01 13:43:14
0
laszlo.parker
Laszlo Parker :
Elle a tout dit
2026-08-30 12:16:57
3
khatir34500
✌🏽KHÂTÎR✌🏽 :
Les Français les pauvre pense avoir inventé la charcuterie mdrrr
2026-08-30 13:23:38
1
hendacly
Henda Cly 🇲🇱 🇨🇵 :
Déjà le pain ça commence bien 😏
2026-08-31 13:25:53
1
jochazzz
Jochaz :
Un tour à gauche, un tour à droite
2026-08-30 11:59:59
1
To see more videos from user @arid.boucherie, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

JUST DO IT.🇷🇺🇺🇦 Graham's number is a very large number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form  a b c ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ {\displaystyle a^{b^{c^{\cdot ^{\cdot ^{\cdot }}}}}}, even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical busy beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387.[1] Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is  g 64 {\displaystyle g_{64}},[2] where g n = { 3↑↑↑↑3,	 if  n=1  and 3 ↑ g n − 1 3,	 if  n≥2.  {\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}} Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid. #fyp #ukraine #viral #politics #eurowaffen
JUST DO IT.🇷🇺🇺🇦 Graham's number is a very large number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form a b c ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ {\displaystyle a^{b^{c^{\cdot ^{\cdot ^{\cdot }}}}}}, even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical busy beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387.[1] Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is g 64 {\displaystyle g_{64}},[2] where g n = { 3↑↑↑↑3, if n=1 and 3 ↑ g n − 1 3, if n≥2. {\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}} Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid. #fyp #ukraine #viral #politics #eurowaffen

About