man v food - not entertaining, what has society come to?

That's a pretty negative stereotype you're carrying around... <br />
<br />
The problem with this thread is that it's narrowed the focus too far. People are reading the OP and reflexively feeling attacked on an individual level. I feel like the underlying message here is that Man v Food is symptomatic of a much larger social issue. Call it capitalism if you want. There is a massive disparity between the world's wealthiest countries and the poorest. Recently there was a big hoo-hah about the 1%, and this is a similar principle. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of our current societal preferences.

That's a pretty negative stereotype you're carrying around...

The problem with this thread is that it's narrowed the focus too far. People are reading the OP and reflexively feeling attacked on an individual level. I feel like the underlying message here is that Man v Food is symptomatic of a much larger social issue. Call it capitalism if you want. There is a massive disparity between the world's wealthiest countries and the poorest. Recently there was a big hoo-hah about the 1%, and this is a similar principle. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of our current societal preferences.

It's not America's fault Africa is a basket case though. Ultimately the Africans only have themselves to blame if their continent is poverty stricken, similarly I wouldn't dare blame a foreign power for the state of the British economy. We're responsible for the mess we're in, only the deluded would look around for scapegoats.

It's not bull, you don't know me, you don't know what my life is like so don't judge me. If i was a veggie at home all I would be able to eat is is boring old salad cos my dad does the shopping and won't get anything specifically for me ie vegie burgers and i have no money of my own to buy food. I either eat what he cooks for the main meal or I don't eat. When i'm older and if i lvie on my own I probably will be veggie, there's few meats i actually like the taste of, but I need protein and from what dad brings home it's hard to get it any other way.

IMO it's ok to eat meat because you need to protein etc. But I think it's a waste of an animals life for one person to try and eat as much of it as possible when they only need one chop from it or whatever for a meal if they have veg with it to. I am being consistent. I'm saying it's ok to eat meat, but many of the challenges he attempts are a ridiculous waste of an animals life.

Yet you somehow manage to cook vegetarian food sometimes when you occasionally do cook? If your dad refuses to pay for it, and you can't pay for it (which in itself I find hard to believe - you never receive any money or anything like new clothes you could request money for instead?) how do you manage that?

The point they are making is that while the presenter on this show doesn't need all that meat, nor do you need "one chop" with your veg. You can't logically claim that killing animals unnecessarily is wrong if you do it a lot but OK if it's only a small amount. It's either right or wrong, and while you eat meat you can't criticise others for eating it without being a hypocrite.

Without going into too much depth, Africa doesn't exist in a vaccuum and there are certain things the US, amongst others, has done that has restricted Africa's potential. Stuff like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (A.G.O.A.), which in theory allowed Africa to export to US markets, but only on the condition that the raw materials of the products originally came FROM the US.

Of course, the act did other things, but lots of them undermined African industry and competitiveness. You could say Africa didn't need to sign the agreement, but it's difficult to take part in world trade with exporting stuff.

I don't buy into the idea that the West are wholly (or mostly) responsible for African poverty while the Africans themselves are blameless angels desperate to set up a productive capitalist economy if only the U.S etc would let them. No doubt the U.S has hindered Africa in some ways, but they hinder us too and we're not a basketcase, yet. The American led invasions into Iraq and Afghanastan for example cost us £millions (if not £billions) but this doesn't mean the Americans are to blame for the British sovereign debt crisis. We are. If the Africans are unhappy with the deals they've negotiated they're free to change them at any time. Why don't they do this?

Well, I feel like it would be kind of a folly to criticise the average African citizen for whatever state their country might be in. This was the line of critique bin Laden used when explaining why it was ok that 9/11 killed civilians, although the difference here is that many African nations aren't a democracy and the citizens have even LESS power of their government than the US. I don't think you could blame individuals themselves for being in poverty.

Whilst Africa as a continent is improving all the time, there ARE still regions which are lacking and have serious problems. The development of Africa COULD be helped considerably, if other nations were less comfortable with offering them terrible deals (AGOA etc). Whilst Africa could of course outright reject these agreements, they currently don't have the bargaining power to negotiate a better one. If the only chance for exportation to other markets is a poor deal, they unfortunately don't have a lot of choice but to take it.

You'll also have to explain to me why the British debt is significant, I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning it?

America isn't responsible for African poverty. Take Zimbabwe for example: under colonial rule they enjoyed a booming manufacturing economy that produced a mountain of iron and steel, these ventures owed little to foreign aid as they were wholly self sufficient and capable of producing profit. Yet as soon as they kicked the British out the economy hit the rocks, to the point where inflation rocketed to 6.5 sextillion % in 2008. This wasn't America's fault, it was the fault of of the rulers who thought they could run Zimbabwe's economy better than we could. They couldn't. It doesn't matter what the U.S does as long as Africa has leaders such as Mugabe who don't know what they're doing.

For example, dad sometimes has fish and chips for lunch on a friday so only has a sandwich for tea. In which case I might make something like ratatouille using random bits of vegetables we have left over, with some pasta. But without much protein I wouldn't be very healthy. Dad won't buy any of those 'funny' beans or things like lentils and nuts or veggie burgers.

How am i meant to pay for my own food shopping, I'm still living at home, as a student with no job and hardly any saving. I usually get new clothes with birthday/christmas money. If there's a special occassion such as a wedding, mum and dad will get me a new dress if I need one. I don't see how you managed to equate not buying me different food to not giving me any money at all for stuff like clothes. They also buy my stationary/uniform for school/college.

How old are you? about 12 ? Have you not heard of utilitarianism? People need protein in their diets, many people also like the taste of meat. Meat is one of the easiest ways to get protein. Utilitarianism is where you use/sacrifice the least amount possible. Ie having just enough meat/ killing jsut enough animals to give you the protein you need. And even though I don't like many meats I believe this approach to be fair. What Adam does in some of his shows is eat enough meat to feed a small family for several days, which is a stupid watse and excess. How is being utilitarian hypocritical, you obviously didn't understand what it was.

By your own definition: "Utilitarianism is where you use/sacrifice the least amount possible" - the least amount possible would be none. Hence why I think you're a hypocrite. I find it hard to believe that your dad will refuse to buy a 30p tin of beans etc., particularly as he'd be saving more than that by not buying you meat, but if so you could spend your birthday/christmas money on it. I'm sure it isn't what you want to do, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to take it that far, but in my book if you want to moan at someone for eating meat unnecessarily, you cannot eat meat unnecessarily yourself (regardless of you having it occasionally and him having big portions). Or at the very least, you should expect to be called a hypocrite!

I like it.

Why? It's gross, do you condone being disgusting?

Nope.
I just like watching people eat.

Ok...Whatever floats your boat.

That's a pretty negative stereotype you're carrying around...

The problem with this thread is that it's narrowed the focus too far. People are reading the OP and reflexively feeling attacked on an individual level. I feel like the underlying message here is that Man v Food is symptomatic of a much larger social issue. Call it capitalism if you want. There is a massive disparity between the world's wealthiest countries and the poorest. Recently there was a big hoo-hah about the 1%, and this is a similar principle. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of our current societal preferences.

I was just saying that she is too uptight so plz calm down

Nope.
I just like watching people eat.

I was just saying that she is too uptight so plz calm down

Garbage from the OP.

There are so many things on TV that are less entertaining than Man vs Food.

If I had to list them all I'd be typing for days.