No. They're both cooked so therefore they're both pasteurized.

And Frijoles rancheros doesn't necessarily include chili peppers at all, whereas chili must.

>>7838342
Beans are also a must in chilli.
Hehe.

>>7838342
Frijoles rancheros include jalapeno peppers mate

>>7838365

Usually, I agree. But it's not a required part of the recipe.

>>7838337
Not sure what you mean by 'pasteurized,' so I'll assume you meant 'bastardized,' in way yes, its origins are in borderland cowboy food, though the current incarnation didn't really emerge until the early 20th century; in another way, no, frijoles rancheros must, by definition, have beans, chili may or may not, and that fact causes violent arguements.
>in the bean camp
>Cincinnati chili is not chili

Banned

>>7838342
Also, isn't Frijoles Rancheros beans, whereas chili by definition has no beans?

>>7838563
Frijoles rancheros is beans + tomatoes + Serrano chilies + onions+ garlic + beef/sausage/bacon

>>7838563
Why don't you go look up the definition of chili before spouting nonsense. The only people who take issue with beans beyond not liking it are retarded Texans who make even Nazis look open minded

>>7838337
No.

>>7838662
Cincinnafag detected
Take your stewed slop and pour it over the spaghetti in your pockets

>>7838662
>He thinks chilli has beans

>>7838389
It is. Else is just a simple beans recipe.