politics and food - "everything i want to do is illegal"

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
The "greediest" of capitalists, when allowed, will work to make as much as they can in the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Greediest of Capitalists has only got ~80 years to pursue that goal.

Considering how long humans have been living on this planet 80 years is very short term I think.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

the "food" the vast majority of fast food outlets sell does more to damage the human body than nourish it - hence my claim that it is not really "food"



[/ QUOTE ]

what does this mean? Are you saying that I can survive on zero food for longer than I can survive on fast food? What are you saying?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the "food" the vast majority of fast food outlets sell does more to damage the human body than nourish it - hence my claim that it is not really "food"



[/ QUOTE ]

what does this mean? Are you saying that I can survive on zero food for longer than I can survive on fast food? What are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, under that definition, "unhealthy food" would be a contradiction.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably because those same stupid people believe the advertising they are brainwashed with and are too lazy to care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever had a BigMac? Trust me its not the advertising thats brain washing people [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
that advertising is able to sell absolutely anything to stupid people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider anyone who buys products you don't want "stupid".

[ QUOTE ]
That people are inherently lazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they value their time more than you.

[ QUOTE ]
That there are enough stupid people in the world to sustain the profits of many large multinational corporations - despite those corporations selling "food" that isn't really food.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone should eat only what you consider to be satisfactory for them to eat. Otherwise, they are stupid and lazy.

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably because those same stupid people believe the advertising they are brainwashed with and are too lazy to care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe carrot and celery companies should spend more on advertising. Once everyone is aware of their objective superiority to fast food, McD's and Taco Bell will be going under. Oh no - I'd better sell my stock now!

[ QUOTE ]
Co-incidentally the farming practices that encourage deforestation to provide grazing land for large herds of cattle do a lot of damage as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, choosing to leave the forest there and not generate food for people that need it would do a lot of damage too.

[ QUOTE ]
In any sane world fast food should not exist - there ought not to be the huge demand for it imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes your opinion count and everyone that buys fast food's opinion not count? Oh yeah, they're just stupid and lazy, I forgot.

Finally, answer me this - have you ever eaten fast food?

[nietzreznor]

lfd,

I pretty much agree with your position here.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what food production would look like in a market-anarchist society, but I tend to think you're right in supposing that there would be much more emphasis on smaller-scale, local production (iirc, Carson made some interesting points in an anti-walmart piece about the ways in which government subsidizes transportation for big businesses, which I think has a lot to do with why the big business model is so 'successful' in our economy).
Ideally a truly free market wouldn't allow businesses to externalize costs in the way they do now (which I think is a major cause of the environmental problems we have, though certainly not the only one), and of course with no centralized state direct subsidies would be out of the question.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also still unclear as to how people "own" animals in AC-world, last I checked they weren't too concerned with human property rights, but maybe in another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not sure that animals could be concerned with human property rights--I think the reason most ACists don't think animals have rights is because only moral agents can have rights, and animals aren't moral agents.
I tend to agree with the above, but I also think that we have many moral obligations to animals (obligations that alas aren't legally enforcable) which would include not killing them for food.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm also still unclear as to how people "own" animals in AC-world, last I checked they weren't too concerned with human property rights, but maybe in another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not sure that animals could be concerned with human property rights--I think the reason most ACists don't think animals have rights is because only moral agents can have rights, and animals aren't moral agents.
I tend to agree with the above, but I also think that we have many moral obligations to animals (obligations that alas aren't legally enforcable) which would include not killing them for food.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never understood the part about "moral agents" - would you mind explaining what it means, and why it is considered by many to be true in this context? Thanks for your time.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never understood the part about "moral agents" - would you mind explaining what it means, and why it is considered by many to be true in this context? Thanks for your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems to me that there are three basic moral statuses--you can be a moral agent, a moral patient, or neither. A moral 'patient' is someone/something that is the recipient of moral consideration. A moral 'agent' is someone who actively provides the moral consideration; in other words, a moral agent is just someone capable of moral thought/action (not 'moral' as in good, but as in the general realm pertaining to good and bad).

The average human being is a moral agent since he/she has the capacity to consider things from a moral perspective and to subsequently act on them. I don't think this is true of animals (at least not *most*--perhaps some have this capacity).
So it seems to me that animals are moral pateints, but not moral agents--human beings have moral obligations towards animals (obligations that we don't have towards, say, a pizza, which is neither a moral agent nor patient), but it wouldn't make sense to say that an animal had any moral obligations towards each other or us since moral concepts don't really apply to them.

And hence I don't think animals can have 'rights' since having a right to, say, your TV is having the moral legitimacy of using force to see that others don't break or steal it. But it wouldn't make sense to call any animals' use of force 'legitimate' since they don't have the capacity to make such distinctions.

Sorry if this was rambling and/or confusing; a better statement of this basic argument can be found here: "Why Fur is not Murder".

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that advertising is able to sell absolutely anything to stupid people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider anyone who buys products you don't want "stupid".

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I consider the vast majority of the "couch potato generation," the people that are obese, who eat too much fast "food" - people that get caught up in the rat race working 9-5 jobs, who come home and flop on the couch and then tune in to 98 channels of brainwashing, advertiser sponsored drivel on the TV every day stupid. The sheeple who follow the fashions, who spend money they haven't got on stuff like the latest trendiest pair of shoes so that they can clog up the IKEA shoe cupboard they own, after being worn once with "that" outfit that they liked in the shop but can't wear cos it makes their bum look big. The morans who buy appauling music that they wouldn't actually ever listen to were it not for the commercial radio stations they feel compelled to listen to at work repeating the same moranic god awful music over and over and over (interspersed with [censored] adverts) - so that it grows on them (like fungus) and then they have to buy it. The people that have bought into the whole capitalism thing and who think that possessions and keeping up with the Jones next door will somehow make them happy. The people that lust after the power and wealth and celebrity of the faces that they see on TV, who want to be just like them but can't cos they are too stupid to work hard enough to chase their dreams - don't have the good luck(?) to be beautiful or to be born with a metabolism that gives them a perfect body or the single mindedness to work hard enough to get one. The people who chase all of this crap and are always stressed out about the overinflated credit card bill they get every month and how they are going to pay it - the ones who could get out of the rat trap if only they stopped and thought about things a little. The people who are so "busy" worrying about all of the above that they have no time to cook or think about what they are eating so more often than not they buy "fast food"

Those are the people I consider stupid and lazy, jmo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That there are enough stupid people in the world to sustain the profits of many large multinational corporations - despite those corporations selling "food" that isn't really food.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone should eat only what you consider to be satisfactory for them to eat. Otherwise, they are stupid and lazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. tbh what other people do is entirely down to them - I just think most people who eat fast food. Or I should say who eat fast food regularly are lazy and stupid. If people were aware of what is actually IN the fast food they are eating and what potential for harm it has then lots of them wouldn't eat that same "food" - of course there will always be the people who eat it anyway knowing full well the damage they are causing themselves - see the people who smoke knowing that they will likely die from cancer or heart disease or whatever as a result - but a lot of people just wouldn't eat the [censored] fast food companies call food if they knew more about it imo.

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe carrot and celery companies should spend more on advertising. Once everyone is aware of their objective superiority to fast food, McD's and Taco Bell will be going under. Oh no - I'd better sell my stock now!

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. It's not a question of advertising alone - I suspect you already know this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Co-incidentally the farming practices that encourage deforestation to provide grazing land for large herds of cattle do a lot of damage as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, choosing to leave the forest there and not generate food for people that need it would do a lot of damage too.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL LOL LOL. You are seriously arguing the point that hacking down the rainforest is GOOD for this world??

We obviously have to generate food for people - there are many many many better ways to do that that don't involve cutting down acres of quality forest. The deforestation is happening (I think) because it's the cheapest way. The market driven by the stupid brainwashed people I referenced above demands it's burgers at the lowest price it can get them at. The competition in the marketplace forces companies to source their raw ingredients as cheaply as they can cos e.g. if McDonalds don't Burger King will instead then BK will be selling cheaper burgers and zomg McDonalds will LOSE SOME PROFITS!! - wouldn't that just be *terrible*

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any sane world fast food should not exist - there ought not to be the huge demand for it imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes your opinion count and everyone that buys fast food's opinion not count? Oh yeah, they're just stupid and lazy, I forgot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I maintain that my opinion counts more than the peoples that buy into the "fast food" ideal? Have I hit a nerve or something [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] People can do and think whatever the hell they like - I don't really give a [censored] tbh. I was just expressing my opinion on an internet forum, it doesn't make it any more valid than your opinion or the people who read my post and disagreed with it and didn't post a point by point rebuttal, or the people who read it and nodded quietly thinking - hey this guy has a point who also didn't post.

*shrug*

[ QUOTE ]

Finally, answer me this - have you ever eaten fast food?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course I have - when I was a student I ate my way though my fair share of burgers and other [censored] food. Surprisingly once in a while I go to McDonalds - I estimate that I spend approximately £50 a year in total on fast "food"

I should have said that people who buy fast food often are stupid and lazy - not people who buy it at all. my bad.

I suppose this is where you call me a hypocrite or something and then go off on a rant about how it totally invalidates all of my arguments which are so obviously wrong while yours are so obviously right. If that happens I'll probably just ignore your reply think to myself that you are yet another moran who missed the point and move on.

Oh yeah for the record I am a chef by trade - my sister is a Manager for McDonalds and I know what kind of crap fast food companies (which includes the ones that produce microwave ready meals BTW) put into their food to make it look nice and smell nice and taste acceptable. Almost none of those chemicals are nourishing for the human body and a good majority of them cause significant damage.

Someone pointed out above that stupid people who buy their vegetables from supermarkets are more concerned with how blemish free and consistant they are than what their actual nutritional value is, and that if they stopped and thought about it they would instead buy more from local markets getting real food and less from supermarkets getting cosmetically enhanced food - The "couch potato generation" has been conned into thinking that image is the number one considerations above all else. I believe that is wrong and you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover illustration.

But hey what do I know?