I just joined a gym now what? - Page 18

On December 02 2021 01:54 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On November 30 2021 23:18 hiems wrote: Yea that's for sure. Its definitely hard to only get so many calories at McDonalds but you have to find the willpower to do it. My cheat meal ended up being just like 1 Big Mac and 4 piece nuggets. It sucks balls but again, you have to do it...and its better to at least be able to eat that 1 big mac + nuggets than not have a cheat meal at all. The one thing I'd say is that it is retarded to waste your cheat meal calories on a soda. If its a cheat meal and not a regular thing, I'd rather just get aspartame or whatever BS and go with the diet coke or zero calorie coke or whatever...or better yet a water or coffee... My other tip for you would probably be to stop being dumb. There should be no cheat meals for me. I should keep clean food at the house to eat or prepare. I suppose in a pinch it is better to pick up a small rather than a supersized. McDonald's is trash but I hold a nostalgia for it. Sardegnian soup > beans and rice > avocado toast > pb & j > croque monsieur > small fast food > supersized fast food Seems simple enough for lunch. Fast food should be cut completely. What I am going to miss though is tonight's spontaneous dinner. I am surprised that we are going to a French restaurant. I can't help myself. I am not going to eat like 2 salads. No, I am going in on the escargoe, the fucking Parisian style gnocchi, and the fucking out of this world creme brule. The high is different to even a croque monsieur at lunch although in the big picture the high is not that much more substantial then eating the 5th bowl of Sardegnian soup? I would be lying to myself if I believed that. A 5 course meal at a great French restaurant is so much better (how much better exactly?) than the 10th bowl of Sardegnian soup in 5 days. Not only do I need to cut out fast food I probably need to cut out great French restaurants. If I don't cut out a lot I will just revert back to getting fatter which is just not wise in any way at this point.

You forgot to say "et al"

On December 02 2021 05:38 drone666 wrote: saying "even Arnold said" is equivalent to say "even Doyle Brunson said" saying something about Linus or other top poker player nowadays, you can't tricky me pretending that you know what you are talking about on this subject lol, you already showed how ignorant you are and there's no turning back, if nutrition is what you understand the most, then I suggest everyone on this site to ignore whatever you have to say about anything, you are a farce posting a person who is stronger than me and is vegan is completely stupid, I don't even think I need to explain this to the dumbest I know, same as the Arnold thing, so seems like you are not even aware of the most obvious flaws in what you are trying to rationalize, I imagine the same logic would apply to your study researching skills so it wouldn't be me who would be cherry picking studies

The nice thing about you is that you have moments of lucidity where you realize that you are a bullshitter. In one of those moments you edited your signature to what it is now and we are all thankful for it.

and Arnold was a bodybuilder, not even a reference in nutrition

The point is that he has maintained his health and a great physique into old age, not just that he was one of the best bodybuilders of all time. When we are not having a debate about scientific evidence, this is sort of thing you point to. It's easy to find people that are strong and healthy on plant-based diets into old age. It's not easy to find long-term keto/carnivorous people who are fit and healthy into old age, on the other hand. Many of them are already dead of heart attacks or they had strokes.

And my posting vegans who are able to perform at the absolute highest elite level 100% disproves what you said. You said that vegans are missing "key nutrients". "Key nutrients", i.e. nutrients that are essential for their bodies/brains to function properly. Yet, it is impossible to perform at an elite level over a long enough period of time if they were deprived of essential nutrients. That's what essential means. It is not optional. It's simple logic, and you have lost that argument.

You've also lost the research argument, since it is a scientific consensus that plant-based diets are healthy, whether exclusively vegan or predominantly plant-based. It's not just my opinion and my research skills. You are going against the scientific consensus -- the consensus of people who have been taught how to do research and who are subjected to peer review. Yes, the exclusively vegan diets carry a little bit more risk of certain deficiencies if people have done little to no research on the food that they eat, but it is widely accepted by all nutrition associations that these risks can be eliminated with proper planning and supplementation. But you were not even criticizing veganism in the first place, you were shitting on plant-based diets (which can still include small amounts of meat, fish, eggs, whatever would give you your precious B12 or DHA or whatever else you think vegans are missing). Apparently you don't even know what the term means.

i have to say veganism is the perfect metaphor for Loco's entire worldview

a diet that proscribes vast swaths of healthy food that billions of people eat with no problem as evil

and the slightest deviation being an unacceptable contamination.

based in ethical reasons, but not for the protection of animals (otherwise would be vegetarian not vegan as no one need die to give you milk and eggs), rather for the self-flagellation of the evil western man destroying the earth through global warming. and then try to use "health" as an excuse, like the food humans evolved to eat and have eaten for millions of years is poison. in no other area of your life would someone reject categorically something so basic on such a ridiculous pretext. imagine choosing to never ride in a car because SUVs are marginally safer, giving you an average life expectancy of 90 instead of 88.

personally curious if he's not dumb enough to not own any leather shoes or have leather seats in his car

total delusion to bring up the fact that MISTER UNIVERSE who is now in his 70s started a vegan (PLUS EGGS) diet three years ago.

yeah you can be vegan and eat pasta and drink pepsi all day. you know the #1 issue with western (and now chinese/etc.) diets? it isn't meat. it's CALORIES, and it's calories because of CARBS, and it's CARBS because retards like Loco 70-80 years ago started this bullshit pseudoscience around meat. did you know meat has fat in it? so do humans right? so if you eat fat in meat, maybe you will get fat? therefore let's switch to high carb diets, all get diabetes, and start to decrease life expectancies for the first time in history

most people on a vegan diet are docile and useless, turning vegan isn't going to make you arnold, or dwayne johnson (or was it vin diesel) who also decided to go vegan AFTER becoming an enormous successful hunk.

that said there are people who manage vegan without becoming zombies but i question whether a lot of them aren't on coke or amphetamines to keep functioning

vegan diet is ABSOLUTELY not for children

grandparents, maybe. don't want to waste your precious meat rations on them anyway. even arnold is not a good example

this is a guy, mr. universe, movie star, governor of the largest state in america, who married an imbecile and came in his ugly ass maid on the side

On December 01 2021 00:50 Loco wrote: You realize that plant-based everything exists right? Plant-based "fish", "beef", "chicken"', eggs, etc. This isn't the 60s, that old "vegans eat grass" stereotype is only believed by absolute retarded meatheads. Even Arnold advises people to eat plant-based. Why are you telling people to educate themselves when you haven't educated yourself in the first place? Every single major health organization has the position that a balanced plant-based diet is extremely healthy. It's alternative health gurus (quacks) and uneducated people with their anecdotes who'll tell you that "you're definitely going to miss out on key nutrients".

can you humor me and educate us how uttering the words plant-based fish, plant-based-beef, plant-based chicken, and plant-based eggs, doesn't deserve to have you immediately laughed out of the human race?

On December 01 2021 00:50 Loco wrote: I haven't stopped eating sushi in the last 6 years I've been vegan. Do you even know what sushi is? Google it. It is a dish made of sushi rice in a roll, with seafood OR vegetable garnish. Tofu or yam sushi is just as traditional as eating toxic fish is. It's just better for you.

this is the kind of assbackwards thinking that would get someone to say a ball of ground processed plant matter is a hamburger if you put it between two pieces of bread

your rice and carrot is not the sushi anyone cares about or that people open and go to sushi bars for

Conversation started with RikD saying he wanted to eat a plant-based diet with occasionally eating meat. Anyone that takes issue with that is probably more fanatical than Loco

Where are you getting your eggs and dairy from, Santa? An industry that breeds animals? What happens to the males? Can they give you milk and eggs? What happens to them?

Bonus points if you can answer these other questions:
How do cows produce milk? Do they need to be impregnated first? Do they produce a natural and pleasant amount of milk and we just end up with the excess after the babies have had their fill?
How many eggs do wild chickens lay? How many do they lay after having been bred for this very purpose by humans? How does that affect them? What's the average lifespan of a cow producing milk or chicken producing eggs in those industries, versus if they were pets?

Good luck convincing me that there is nothing morally problematic with vegetarianism while answering all of these questions. If you have a goat in your backyard that was gifted to you by Shiva to feed your family then by all means carry on milking it. For most vegans, it's an ethical imperative to avoid contributing to the death and suffering of animals that are bred for that purpose when there is no need to do so because it is relatively easy to find nutritionally adequate equivalents.

in the case of male chicks they get humanely vaporized by a series of blades

what moral imperative is there not to eat retarded animals like shrimp or grasshoppers that feel no suffering? there isn't, you're just a sucker for any dogma you can latch on to.

where I get my milk and eggs from is moot because I'm not the one with the issue. i get chicken and beef from the store.

okay let's grant that vegetarianism is morally untenable. just take this little quiz by yourself and see how far you get before cognitive dissonance sets in. do you wear leather clothes? wool clothes?
have you ever taken medicine that was tested on animals?
have you ever bought a wooden table? do you use paper? do you live in a wood house? who do you think lived in the trees of that forest before you selfishly sacrificed them just to be able to elevate things 3 feet above the ground?
have you ever flown on an airplane? any idea how many dinosaurs and trilobites had to die to give you that luxury?
do you eat HONEY? do you know that bees are essential to the ecosystem and the agriculture that your smarmy vegan meme diet depends on? you know we need beekeepers to raise and support them?

"gifted by Shiva" - if you want to buy a goat, you can. you are a human being gifted not by Shiva but by your birthright with self-determination. you can use your economic freedom to buy a goat. in most jurisdictions, if you have a house, you can have a number of chickens. i've raised them, they lay about one egg every two days each. you're correct they have been bred specifically to lay eggs repeatedly. the effect of this would be to reduce overall suffering, if you had half a brain enough to realize that a chicken that can produce hundreds of eggs is worth more as a source of protein as an egg factory than if you raised it just to kill it as soon as it was big enough to eat. indeed, chickens having been selectively bred, and also sheep, it is in fact a moral imperative for humans TO now make use of their gifts. if you don't eat the eggs then the whole exercise, the chicken's entire existence, is a waste. here's a loose sheep that escaped. WITHOUT the care of humans, this animal is helpless. it's in fact a moral obligation TO raise them now.

+ Show Spoiler +

in fact it's interesting for Loco to mention the word "pet." yeah a pig is probably going to be happier as a pet. hey you know what cats and dogs eat? meat. they're pets. they can't be vegan. literally if you want to raise a dog or cat, an animal somewhere has to suffer to fucking feed him.

you can source free range eggs and humane milk if you want to draw the line there, you can source free range chickens and humane beef, you can eat shrimp and other retards that don't feel anything (if you have ever smashed a spider yet don't eat shrimp for moral reasons, you're morally bankrupt and mentally retarded). it may be slightly more expensive but that's what the whole vegan exercise is to begin with. you can eat roadkill or animals that died of natural causes.

you are deluding yourself into thinking you're ethical when there are industries that raise and kill hundreds of millions of animals, and you pass the meat section at the supermarket on Tuesday and there's a steak for $10, and on Friday it's still there and marked down to $5 because Friday is the expiration date. then that little steak gets either thrown out or turned to dog food. if you see meat that came from an animal that someone else already slaughtered, in point of fact by NOT eating it, you're showing that cow died in vain because humans didn't use every last bit of its sacrifice. it's the least you could do TO not waste the gift it gave you.

---Again: Why FOOD? Why is DIET the field that requires such a strict dogma lacking any nuance?

50-100% of the electricity you personally use to see at night and heat yourself and cook and shit and gaslight people on this site comes from fossil fuels. for canada i'd guess 80-100% especially being winter almost 100% now. every time you get in a car, or bus, to go to work, or if you're on welfare (this is for argument's sake, not a diss), every time you get money paid for by taxes by someone who drove their car to work, you are responsible for the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

what right do you have? where do you get off? why aren't you 100% solar/electric?

you can completely eschew animal products to save shrimps with a brain mass far less than one gram, yet feel entitled enough to pollute the atmosphere to kill and endanger MY GRANDCHILDREN and make them pay for it?

are you that much of a sociopath you weigh the lives of human beings as worth so little next to your precious fucking chickens? why is the suffering of animals a moral priority in your life over the suffering of humans? is this not a textbook marker of sociopathy?

in fact. what right does an animal have to lead a life free of all suffering? we're human beings, taxonomically homo sapiens sapiens. as an animal born into nature, do i share the natural right to have a life free of all suffering that a cow or chicken apparently have? you fucking moron?

---I'll give you the answer for you (Not for you so much as intelligent people reading this). The reason is FOOD is personal. Food is an area where you can torture yourself, and punish yourself, with the belief you're pursuing the greater moral good.

In any other aspect of society, Loco would have a completely different approach.
Loco believes that he is evil, we are evil, western civilization is evil, capitalism is evil, therefore HE has to pay a morality tax by depriving himself of basic, easily accessible food, and paying much more money for inferior substitutes.

I cannot restate this enough, you CANNOT RAISE CHILDREN on a vegan diet. Even if there weren't growth differences, good luck getting them to eat 1kg of almond peanut butter lentil paste and protein shakes every day. You could be vegan and raise children normally, but again, good luck getting the kid to eat his chicken breast when mom and dad are downing their 40th imitation crab cake. And good luck feeding the developing world on this.

If this were wall street, if this were institutional racism, any other field, Loco wouldn't be suggesting meat-eating is an original sin that can't possibly be morally upheld, therefore it's the responsibility of the individual to burden themselves with the extra cost and reduced quality of life. Why? Loco isn't posting to convince anyone of something, he's posting for the same reason I do, to reassure himself how much smarter he is than everyone. But my friends, Loco is an idiot. It's unethical to punish yourself for the sins of the world. Your first personal responsibility is to take care of YOURSELF. You did not set up the world, you don't run governments and corporations. If you were serious about reducing the suffering of animals, you would address it at the political level, you would address bearing the cost at the societal level. but as Loco knows, the good is the enemy of the perfect, and the goal is not to save animals, the goal is to posture and show ourselves and everyone else how superior we are as characteristic of a narcissistic sociopath. we can ALWAYS do that as long as factory farming exists, in fact we NEED it to exist in perpetuity so we can always signal how ethically superior we are. the same way we NEED racism to exist to show we're anti-racist. the same way we NEED republicans to be hitler so we can show we're anti-fascist.

but who's to say a litle corrective violence ever hurt a factory-farmed animal?

You seem to think that veganism means avoiding anything that has ever had anything to do with an animal 100% of the time. That's just stupid. The word was coined by a man who went on to found the Vegan Society where they describe veganism as:

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Notice the key words "as far as is possible and practicable". It is possible for me to clothe myself without wool, leather, etc., and it is possible for me to live without commercial honey which undoubtedly harms bees and their populations, so yes, I do not purchase those things and my quality of life is completely unaffected. Some vegans might argue that purchasing some articles from 2nd hand stores or wearing ones they were gifted or that that they got pre-veganism transition is okay, and I think that's fine too. So is donating them.

If I need to use a medicine that has an animal by-product in it or has been tested on animals and it could save my life, I will do it. It is in line with veganism. You think it's hypocritical because you are making a Nirvana fallacy. Another Nirvana fallacy example would be: "Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes." Yes, but the goal is the reduction of harm, not the complete elimination of it.

in the case of male chicks they get humanely vaporized by a series of blades

You went from "vegetarianism causes no death to animals" to "but their death is humane". Moving the goal post, another fallacy. We should put you in a labor camp until you can learn to make non-fallacious arguments, that would be humane. Not bothering to read the rest of your poorly-reasoned diatribe on a subject which you have evidently spent no time researching.

On December 04 2021 16:45 Loco wrote: You seem to think that veganism means avoiding anything that has ever had anything to do with an animal 100% of the time. That's just stupid. The word was coined by a man who went on to found the Vegan Society where they describe veganism as: "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

the irony of this obnoxious definition spamming habit is people can learn more from a dictionary than from you

okay Loco I concede, you converted me. I'm a vegan I just eat meat sometimes. another brutal internet debate victory goes your way

you dumb fuck

"they" believe (and probably you if you're actually vegan but you're either gaslighting this instance specifically or your whole fucking shpeel is a troll) that the use of animals for food is exploitation PER SE.

that's why you asked me about chickens and then avoided the whole thing because you really never had someone point out to you before that all you have to do to eat eggs is have some chickens walk around eating to their heart's content with no suffering, and now you have to deal with the asinine contradictions inherent to veganism that that's a form of animal slavery. that's what "they" (check your pronouns comrade) believe

my question was very simple. why is the exploitation and suffering of animals a line of the sand with FOOD
and not with THE REST OF THE ENVIRONMENT. i'm not asking about the dictionary definition of douchebagism. i'm asking you personally why the suffering of animals for FOOD is unthinkable, and the suffering of animals caused by humans for any other reason is kosher. why is FOOD the field to do this? are you more concerned about looking sophisticated in front of your friend by showing off your hip diet, or are you more concerned with the animals? why is your standard for FOOD so strict? is one form of suffering more or less acceptable than another? why?

tell me the difference in the suffering you cause when you drive your fossil fuel car to your fossil fuel job to read the works of dead-end philosophers printed on paper harvested from the habitats of squirrels and deer and bears and foxes and birds that now have noplace to go, and the earth and the oceans heat up, and the coral die, and the fish and the whole food chain that starts from using coral as a habitat, dies. and all the future humans dying of heat stroke and tsunamis with no food that you're killing with your emissions now. why aren't you 100% solar/electric?

tell me without opening a fucking dictionary, without googling veganism, quoting the founder of veganism, why you or anyone should change your life to eat only rice and beans to save the slaughtered cow and the free range chicken but you can't go 100% solar/electric for those fish and squirrels and foxes. tell me what YOU PERSONALLY believe.

don't ignore it just because it's inconvenient, think about it, and answer it, or everyone will see now you're a vapid intellectual coward

On December 04 2021 16:45 Loco wrote: Notice the key words "as far as is possible and practicable". It is possible for me to clothe myself without wool, leather, etc., and it is possible for me to live without commercial honey which undoubtedly harms bees and their populations, so yes, I do not purchase those things and my quality of life is completely unaffected. Some vegans might argue that purchasing some articles from 2nd hand stores or wearing ones they were gifted or that that they got pre-veganism transition is okay, and I think that's fine too. So is donating them.

On December 04 2021 16:45 Loco wrote: If I need to use a medicine that has an animal by-product in it or has been tested on animals and it could save my life, I will do it. It is in line with veganism. You think it's hypocritical because you are making a Nirvana fallacy. Another Nirvana fallacy example would be: "Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes." Yes, but the goal is the reduction of harm, not the complete elimination of it. Show nested quote + in the case of male chicks they get humanely vaporized by a series of blades

i don't know how you can read this and not understand the sarcasm. i accept where my food comes from.
IF someone adopts the philosophy of veganism, there is no such thing as humane slaughter. there is no compromise.

when someone uses a logical fallacy, it's not enough to simply say "Blahblah fallacy"
a logical fallacy is the use of flawed reasoning to arrive at a conclusion from insufficient premises. if you just blurt out the name of a fallacy i have no idea what you're talking about because it looks like you've put words in my mouth as to what my conclusion was

in fact i wasn't making a conclusion, i was asking you to explain why the suffering by an animal to cure your disease is acceptable but to cure your hunger is unacceptable. have you got a utilitarian rationale for that?

like really, i'm trying to figure out the worldview of someone who can let flies eat puppies alive with their vocal cords removed to create life saving medical research, but starts quoting the hindenburg anytime he sees a shrimp cocktail "OH THE HUMANITY!"

On December 04 2021 16:45 Loco wrote: You went from "vegetarianism causes no death to animals" to "but their death is humane". Moving the goal post, another fallacy. We should put you in a labor camp until you can learn to make non-fallacious arguments, that would be humane.

i can't move the goalposts on myself, dumbass

this is moving the goal posts:
A: if the vaccine helped, it would be a good idea, but we shouldn't take the vaccine because it doesn't do actually anything
B: Yes it does, behold this evidence of science, fewer people get the disease and they have less symptoms.
A: but some people do still get it so it's not 100% effective, therefore it's not a good idea
B: Why does it have to be 100% effective? Earlier you said it just had to help.

when you claim something, someone directly rebuts it, and you change the claim.

this is not moving the goal posts:
A: i think exercise is good because it keeps you fit, and you sleep really well after so you feel happy
^ this is called "making two points" or "saying two things" or "talking"

read s. morris engel With Good Reason

you sound like a 13 year old redditor who memorized the fallacy section of wikipedia. actually isn't that posted at the top of /pol/? have you got a secret life you're hiding from us?

vegetarianism causes no death to animals because vegetarianism is an idea. the philosophy of eating things that come from animals, but are not animals, does not require or necessitate the deaths of animals. industrial egg laying results in culled male chicks. it doesn't have to, you can get a quorum, go down to the town square, pass laws requiring humane. you can personally eat humane eggs. you just fucking skip all the parts that are cognitive dissonance for you.

vegans are fucking crazy and so are you, and frankly i have jobs and a life and the only reason i stick my nose in the toilet of your posts is it really might be educational to some of the people here, and some of them are ESL, to expose the ridiculous sophistry and charlatanism that you so often volunteer. if you humanely raised a chicken to give it a beautiful garden of eden life and ate every one of its eggs without wasting it and then it died of old age after you took it to the vet for heart surgery and chemotherapy, a vegan would tell you the animal died so it suffered, because it only existed to give you food, and it would be more humane if it had never been born to begin with because it was fated to exploitation.

On December 04 2021 16:45 Loco wrote: Not bothering to read the rest of your poorly-reasoned diatribe on a subject which you have evidently spent no time researching.

if you can read all those bullshit esoteric philosophers, you can handle an internet forum post

as for poorly-reasoned diatribes, physician heal thyself.

time for me to get into better shape, need to work out more

Does anyone feel educated? I have met schizophrenics that are more coherent than Santafairy. Seriously, are you okay? It's almost like you're dissociating while writing your idiosyncratic monologues.

FYI there has been countless articles, exposés, documentaries, and what have you that have demonstrated that "humane" labels are a marketing gimmick. They know full well that people who buy these things are not interested in doing research, they just want to quiet that little voice inside of themselves while they are grocery shopping that tells them they "need to do their part" or that it's healthier for them. Lots of horrible shit passes off as "humane" and it works because people don't really care and what usually gets them is when you sell them the idea that the products are healthier.

And even in the cases where there is a significant improvement in the way the animals are exploited - this is probably not a good thing in most scenarios. In most scenarios in the first world, animals don't need to be exploited or killed for food at all, so convincing people that what they are doing is more moral if they pay more for "humane" only serves to shut their eyes to the actual issues of exploiting and murdering animals itself. It's better that people are not comfortable with unnecessarily harming other beings. Manipulating people to feel perfectly ok with something that still causes significant harm (physical, social and environmental) and death for the sake of profit is not a good end result.

Also, fun fact for the retard who is late to the party: I cannot be this dogmatic vegan you are painting the caricature of, since I have defended eating bivalves several times before. I am also more in line with freeganism than this idea of pure veganism, as is common in anarchist circles - practices like dumpster diving often results in having animal products on hand. Combatting food waste and helping the poor is not always possible to do by excluding all animal foods. But again, as I've stated, this does align with the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society that I subscribe to. It has never been about purity of exclusion for me, but about what makes sense at every level. I'd sooner eat backyard eggs than palm oil products for ethical reasons too. Point is, I don't need to eat either. They are both harmful to produce and to consume.

bruh... are you eating garbage from dumpsters ? damn.

The hard part about vegan debate is that if u are a normal non vegan you don't have to spend needless time researching this dumb vegan stuff.

Most places have their dumpsters locked but there are places like Food Not Bombs that will take "waste" from other organizations. This equates to group 1 saying "oh, shit, we have 120 eggs we can't use but are still good" to FNB saying "we'd love to have them." Even though FNB in my area attempts to be vegan of course they will take 120 eggs. They have relationships like this with as many groups that will help out. Now, of course FNB can not use up 120 eggs in 1 week considering they improvise the menu every week but eggs are valuable so they freeze them for another week.

Another example is Moxie Marlinspike. There was a hotdog and fries place right by where he was working on a sailboat so for a month or two his diet was grabbing fries out of the boxes in the dumpster. That's like another level. When Moxie jumped on trains to head to Vancouver from San Fran he gorged on wild blackberries. I had a friend who when he was living in his car shooting heroin his food would be packets of mayonnaise from fast food joints or the better option whatever he could find in dumpsters.

Imagine someone has 10 lbs of ground beef sealed at Aldi that they can't sell but is still good. You know when they are going to dump it. They don't lock their dumpster. What is the problem here besides the fact that Aldi considers taking the ground beef as stealing it?

On December 10 2021 05:03 Loco wrote: Does anyone feel educated? I have met schizophrenics that are more coherent than Santafairy. Seriously, are you okay? It's almost like you're dissociating while writing your idiosyncratic monologues. FYI there has been countless articles, exposés, documentaries, and what have you that have demonstrated that "humane" labels are a marketing gimmick. They know full well that people who buy these things are not interested in doing research, they just want to quiet that little voice inside of themselves while they are grocery shopping that tells them they "need to do their part" or that it's healthier for them. Lots of horrible shit passes off as "humane" and it works because people don't really care and what usually gets them is when you sell them the idea that the products are healthier. And even in the cases where there is a significant improvement in the way the animals are exploited - this is probably not a good thing in most scenarios. In most scenarios in the first world, animals don't need to be exploited or killed for food at all, so convincing people that what they are doing is more moral if they pay more for "humane" only serves to shut their eyes to the actual issues of exploiting and murdering animals itself. It's better that people are not comfortable with unnecessarily harming other beings. Manipulating people to feel perfectly ok with something that still causes significant harm (physical, social and environmental) and death for the sake of profit is not a good end result. Also, fun fact for the retard who is late to the party: I cannot be this dogmatic vegan you are painting the caricature of, since I have defended eating bivalves several times before. I am also more in line with freeganism than this idea of pure veganism, as is common in anarchist circles - practices like dumpster diving often results in having animal products on hand. Combatting food waste and helping the poor is not always possible to do by excluding all animal foods. But again, as I've stated, this does align with the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society that I subscribe to. It has never been about purity of exclusion for me, but about what makes sense at every level. I'd sooner eat backyard eggs than palm oil products for ethical reasons too. Point is, I don't need to eat either. They are both harmful to produce and to consume.

It is good education although the guy you are discussing with is mostly unreadable. It's like vegan solid TAG with some tricks vs schizophrenic on maybe 4-5 Monster Energy drinks or something else. What happened to the sarci one liners that at least had a shot of being funny from Santafairy?

On December 10 2021 05:40 Baalim wrote: bruh... are you eating garbage from dumpsters ? damn.

This might be one of those areas where something is incomprehensible to you because you're in Mexico and in Mexico, food only gets thrown out when it's bad. Here, stores throw out good food allllll the time.

I can't picture doing dumpster diving myself but there's no question that in most western cities you can eat really well doing that, for free, and that you're as environmentally sound as you can get doing it.

It's one of those areas where Baal is a total hypocrite. He claims to be anti-consumer capitalism but he isn't. It's not that hard to know that a lot of safe to eat food is thrown away. He is supposed to be an expert on capitalism too, so living in Mexico is no excuse.

Anyhow, no, I don't dumpster dive. Largely because I can't; stores cracked down on this practice several years ago in Montreal and there are very few places that don't have locking mechanisms and cameras to make sure the food is wasted. Gotta keep the plebs working for their food. A small part of it will go to food banks. The best altlernative for people interested in that lifestyle nowadays is to work there or wait for drops from people who are working in those places and are willing to risk their job to bring food drops to people.

On December 10 2021 22:51 Loco wrote: It's one of those areas where Baal is a total hypocrite. He claims to be anti-consumer capitalism but he isn't. It's not that hard to know that a lot of safe to eat food is thrown away. He is supposed to be an expert on capitalism too, so living in Mexico is no excuse. Anyhow, no, I don't dumpster dive. Largely because I can't; stores cracked down on this practice several years ago in Montreal and there are very few places that don't have locking mechanisms and cameras to make sure the food is wasted. Gotta keep the plebs working for their food. A small part of it will go to food banks. The best altlernative for people interested in that lifestyle nowadays is to work there or wait for drops from people who are working in those places and are willing to risk their job to bring food drops to people.

From my experience at Amazon, the food bank food was precisely 1 shopping cart vs astronomical waste. Pretty much just enough that they could say they gave the food to charity for PR. I gave as many pizzas to the crew as I could. I took as many pizzas home as I could. Until Amazon got their tentacles further latched and the security cameras were everywhere and strict policies were implemented. I will say there was one area that remained open and that was people taking trash bags worth of compost home with them to their gardens. It's kind of graphic to grab a pizza off the display and eat it in front of customers where as compost was in the shadows. Plus, the people that did it did not give a fuck and I am unsure if there were any policies on compost whereas food it was a focus.

On December 10 2021 19:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On December 10 2021 05:40 Baalim wrote: bruh... are you eating garbage from dumpsters ? damn. This might be one of those areas where something is incomprehensible to you because you're in Mexico and in Mexico, food only gets thrown out when it's bad. Here, stores throw out good food allllll the time. I can't picture doing dumpster diving myself but there's no question that in most western cities you can eat really well doing that, for free, and that you're as environmentally sound as you can get doing it.

Nah I was just fucking with him lol, in fact I have a friend who started this movement of living from the waste in germany, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Fellmer.

Afaik the locking dumpster thing is due to legal and regulatory liabilities like people getting food poisoned, just like how police shut downs private "soup kitchens" since they are not licensed to give food away, gov should incentivize these things not the other way around.

On December 10 2021 05:03 Loco wrote: In most scenarios in the first world, animals don't need to be exploited or killed for food at all,

except for the rearing of children as you already ignored, except for that one little scenario and oh right who are children again... literally every single person

On December 10 2021 05:03 Loco wrote: FYI there has been countless articles, exposés, documentaries, and what have you that have demonstrated that "humane" labels are a marketing gimmick. They know full well that people who buy these things are not interested in doing research, they just want to quiet that little voice inside of themselves while they are grocery shopping that tells them they "need to do their part" or that it's healthier for them. Lots of horrible shit passes off as "humane" and it works because people don't really care and what usually gets them is when you sell them the idea that the products are healthier. And even in the cases where there is a significant improvement in the way the animals are exploited - this is probably not a good thing in most scenarios. In most scenarios in the first world, animals don't need to be exploited or killed for food at all, so convincing people that what they are doing is more moral if they pay more for "humane" only serves to shut their eyes to the actual issues of exploiting and murdering animals itself. It's better that people are not comfortable with unnecessarily harming other beings. Manipulating people to feel perfectly ok with something that still causes significant harm (physical, social and environmental) and death for the sake of profit is not a good end result.

I'll let my colleague handle the initial rebuttal on this

On December 04 2021 16:45 Loco wrote: Yes, but the goal is the reduction of harm, not the complete elimination of it.

I concur with my esteemed colleague, we should pass laws mandating more humane treatment of animals, more humane slaughter, banning misleading marketing claims that don't comply with our regulations, and accept that the increased cost (surely we can accept that factory farming's existence is owed to its efficiency and not the wanton cruelty of the farmers) is naturally to be transferred to the consumer, who is paying more not to pad the pockets of the profiteers of animal domestication (in some pitiable attack on capitalism), nor to make themselves feel better, but as a tax inherent to the increased cost of a more humane system

for example our chickens never suffered despite your delusion to the contrary
like every post you make is like its own entry into the most retarded thing ever said on this website competition
humans raise parrots as pets, it's literally the exact same fucking class of animals, birds, i'm trying to talk real simple for you because it looks like reading has been an issue

someone has erroneously taught you that beekeepers who specifically raise and keep bees (hence the name beekeeper) to harvest honey are harming them. bees are overwhelmingly killed by pesticides and loss of habitat, farmers use pesticides on crops to kill pests (hence the name pesticide), bees as insects are collateral that get wiped out. you're really just a know-nothing jackass

you want to save the bees, try passing laws restricting the use of pesticides, and that too will get passed on to the consumer in terms of higher costs because of reduced crop yield.

look, your entire post was simply conflating a name with an idea
ex. democracy is bad because north korea has "democratic" in the name
"well when it says humane or free range they're lying or it's not up to my standard." okay who the fuck cares, support the companies that do it right, and also pass actual laws to do it right, not just sit there on reddit with your other 1% of narcissists and vegan fad retards patting each other on the back for having absolutely no effect on the world.

On December 10 2021 05:03 Loco wrote: Also, fun fact for the retard who is late to the party: I cannot be this dogmatic vegan you are painting the caricature of, since I have defended eating bivalves several times before. I am also more in line with freeganism than this idea of pure veganism, as is common in anarchist circles - practices like dumpster diving often results in having animal products on hand. Combatting food waste and helping the poor is not always possible to do by excluding all animal foods. But again, as I've stated, this does align with the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society that I subscribe to. It has never been about purity of exclusion for me, but about what makes sense at every level. I'd sooner eat backyard eggs than palm oil products for ethical reasons too. Point is, I don't need to eat either. They are both harmful to produce and to consume.

the idea that you had already adopted a quote from 50 years ago as a life principle and not just something you googled once this topic started is a nice charade

like you're just stumbling on the edge of what i raised a week ago

let's recap
1) it's okay to eat bivalves (clams)
2) it's okay to dumpster dive for bacon cheeseburgers, thereby having our vegan ideology leech off an actual successful capitalist system that produces more than it consumes, but of course that's not scalable (=sustainable) because the whole society can't eat from a dumpster
3) clams are okay but shrimp are apparently over the line because still no answer
4) eggs grown by a chicken you raised and cared for are "harmful to produce and consume" potentially meaning an egg feels more suffering than a clam (shot in the dark you're pro-choice so i'd imagine eating sperm and human fetuses is probably vegan enough for you, but not an unfertilized bird egg, we'll pretend this makes sense somehow)

if you're feeding poor people who aren't vegan with food waste, that means you're feeding the factory farming system
if a poor person would normally buy meat, but uses food waste or a food bank or food drive as a substitute good when they can't afford it, they're part of the class that creates demand in the economy for meat

so before when i said don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, that's why you shouldn't gloss over humane treatment of animals

On December 04 2021 16:45 Loco wrote: Yes, but the goal is the reduction of harm, not the complete elimination of it.

again could not have said it better myself

since you're the successful activist i leave it to you to pass the humane slaughter free range cattle act so i can get behind it and sleep a little better knowing my delicious cow-based barbecue didn't suffer needlessly

you and your comrades how about going down to the big cattle firms and giving their ceo a little corrective violence

I don't understand why you even bother discussing eating habits and veganism when that 'problem' has been solved for quite a while. Veganism is literally the only long-term solution we have right now when it comes to food considering the impact of animal-produced food on the climate. There is no debate. Even if we sack all the pollution outside of the food industry, the food industry alone makes too big of an impact on climate, things are THAT bad.

It's not even a moral question of killing animals or whatever anymore, it's literally about the survival of our species.