Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    It's difficult being veggie when you don't cook all of your own meals and it would be a nuissance and extra cost to other people to have to do something different to you. When I do cook for myself, it is usually a veggie meal. When/if i live on my own I probably will be almost completely vegetarian.
    I knew you'd give some bull**** excuse about why you're not a vegetarian. :rolleyes:

    But we'll go with it: it's ok for animals to die because it's a "nuisance and extra cost to other people to do something different"? But it's NOT ok for them to die for people's pleasure UNLESS that pleasure is being pretty much the main reason for 99% of meat eaters' choice to eat meat?

    You don't seem very consistent here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    I'm sure people over here wouldn't think much about long term investment if they were dealing with starvation in the short term either.

    Especially if they had a government that gave them no assurance their investments would be protected, they had no capital for easy food production like the western world, and a weak dried up landscape that isn't at all conducive for food growth. They have no chance of competing.
    Perhaps they're hungry in the short term because they rarely consider the benefits of long term investments. I isn't really that difficult to thunk 2-3 years down the line, particularly if you're starving. Immiediate problems like that tend to focus the mind somewhat, its only when you've acquired a lot of things does investment become tricky because most corners of the market have been covered.

    They need government from the ground up, quite literally. If they could distribute land resources fairly they'd then demand a government to defend their property. If this is too difficult then tough, it isn't the West's problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragonfly07)
    People don't need computers to survive.

    People need food in order to not die a slow and painful death.

    While we (arguably) don't steal food from them, we could easily help them to not starve, but we would rather shut out eyes and overeat instead.
    Off you go then. Stop shutting your eyes and get out there and do something. If you're that bothered of course.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Off you go then. Stop shutting your eyes and get out there and do something. If you're that bothered of course.
    I'm not working yet, but when I finish university I plan on using almost all of my disposable income on charities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragonfly07)
    I'm not working yet, but when I finish university I plan on using almost all of my disposable income on charities.
    That's one of the naivest statements I've come across on TSR.

    We'll see how well you fare when you're out in the real world!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What makes me laugh is that that show is on TV then American people wonder why the world laughs at them for being the fattest people on the planet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Perhaps they're hungry in the short term because they rarely consider the benefits of long term investments. I isn't really that difficult to thunk 2-3 years down the line, particularly if you're starving. Immiediate problems like that tend to focus the mind somewhat, its only when you've acquired a lot of things does investment become tricky because most corners of the market have been covered.

    They need government from the ground up, quite literally. If they could distribute land resources fairly they'd then demand a government to defend their property. If this is too difficult then tough, it isn't the West's problem.
    You still seem to be committed to this idea that the solution to Africa's problems is as simple as telling the Africans to stop being such short term thinkers and start planting more seeds. I'm sure the thousands of charity workers currently in Africa would collectively facepalm at such a suggestion.

    It is the West's problem for many reasons. It was the West's colonialism that helped mess up Africa in the first place. Not to mention the fact that British companies are disproportionately responsible for selling them the weapons that are exacerbating the instability. We are also meant to be committed to human rights. A more cynical view is that we would like them to better establish themselves so we can trade with them.

    You seem to think there is some sort of pan-African collective conscience, or that such a thing is even possible. The areas we are talking about are largely in the hands of disparate armed tribes, there is absolutely no prospect of an uncorrupt state suddenly rising up and having the capability to protect everyone's private property.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I love Man V Food Adam doesn't even do it any more so he just finds people around America to do the challenges (Man V Food Nation)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's entertainment for some people and just because you do not enjoy it doesn't make it stupid.

    Plus, as has been said, a large chunk of each show is a documentary of the local area and some of it's noted food traditions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    You still seem to be committed to this idea that the solution to Africa's problems is as simple as telling the Africans to stop being such short term thinkers and start planting more seeds. I'm sure the thousands of charity workers currently in Africa would collectively facepalm at such a suggestion.

    It is the West's problem for many reasons. It was the West's colonialism that helped mess up Africa in the first place. Not to mention the fact that British companies are disproportionately responsible for selling them the weapons that are exacerbating the instability. We are also meant to be committed to human rights. A more cynical view is that we would like them to better establish themselves so we can trade with them.

    You seem to think there is some sort of pan-African collective conscience, or that such a thing is even possible. The areas we are talking about are largely in the hands of disparate armed tribes, there is absolutely no prospect of an uncorrupt state suddenly rising up and having the capability to protect everyone's private property.
    I'm sure the charities would collectively facepalm such a solution, this is because they have a vested interest in seeing these problems play out over decades: it keeps them in jobs you see. If starvation is the problem then the cultivation of more food is the solution, these things aren't difficult to think through if you're prepared to ignore the left-wing dogma for just a minute.

    If British colonialism is responsible for African poverty why aren't the U.S, Australia, Canada and New Zealand suffering from extreme deprivation too? They began life as British colonies afterall, indeed the Queen is still head of state in Canada, Australia and New Zealand so according to you they should all be dirt poor and fighting tooth and nail over their scarce resources. It hasn't happened though because they freely decided to replicate the British model of parliamentary democracy, the Africans could have done this too, if they wanted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I'm sure the charities would collectively facepalm such a solution, this is because they have a vested interest in seeing these problems play out over decades: it keeps them in jobs you see. If starvation is the problem then the cultivation of more food is the solution, these things aren't difficult to think through if you're prepared to ignore the left-wing dogma for just a minute.
    That's just ridiculous. Charities are deliberately keeping people in poverty because they want to keep their jobs, I mean, really? Do you seriously think that's what's happening?

    If British colonialism is responsible for African poverty why aren't the U.S, Australia, Canada and New Zealand suffering from extreme deprivation too? They began life as British colonies afterall, indeed the Queen is still head of state in Canada, Australia and New Zealand so according to you they should all be dirt poor and fighting tooth and nail over their scarce resources. It hasn't happened though because they freely decided to replicate the British model of parliamentary democracy, the Africans could have done this too, if they wanted.
    Err, the countries you're talking about are pretty much still run by the descendents of the colonialists. The situation in Africa is obviously not the same. Also, that was just one of about five possible reasons the situation in Africa should concern the West I came up with off the top of my head.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    That's just ridiculous. Charities are deliberately keeping people in poverty because they want to keep their jobs, I mean, really? Do you seriously think that's what's happening?
    You said that the charities would "collectively facepalm" the idea of growing more food in response to the problem of a lack of food. To me this suggests that they're not serious about solving the underlying problems, I can only conclude that they'd rather not solve the problem and continue picking up a wage packet. What other reason is there?


    Err, the countries you're talking about are pretty much still run by the descendents of the colonialists. The situation in Africa is obviously not the same. Also, that was just one of about five possible reasons the situation in Africa should concern the West I came up with off the top of my head.
    Hong Kong isn't run by the descendents of the colonists and they're doing ok.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You said that the charities would "collectively facepalm" the idea of growing more food in response to the problem of a lack of food. To me this suggests that they're not serious about solving the underlying problems, I can only conclude that they'd rather not solve the problem and continue picking up a wage packet. What other reason is there?
    The fact that it's a childlike interpretation of Africa's problems, wilfully ignorant of numerous factors that keep it in such a poor state.


    Hong Kong isn't run by the descendents of the colonists and they're doing ok.
    Good for them. Hong Kong and the entirety of Africa are hardly comparable models of post-colonialist society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    That's one of the naivest statements I've come across on TSR.

    We'll see how well you fare when you're out in the real world!
    What do you mean? Disposable income is income that I don't use. That's after luxuries that I want etc (which to be honest there aren't much of those considering I don't drink or socialise much :dontknow:). Even on uni student loans there's more than enough for me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evalilyXOX)
    ehh no because that cow or pig has been raised in America or has been imported to America by the request of that specific restaurant where most of the people go because they need some food, not because they are starving.

    Listen I don't mean to sound harsh but your argument is really weak. We all get the fact that you just don't like the damn programme which is absolutely fine because each individual is entitled to their own opinion. But please stop repeating the same old starving people argument as it is not relevant or necessary in this instance.
    Needing food because you're hungry/starving is ok. it's people like Adam who pointlessly try to eat a meal designed for a whole family that i don't like. He doesn't need to eat all that food in one go, a hungry family might.

    (Original post by USRaphael)
    I knew you'd give some bull**** excuse about why you're not a vegetarian. :rolleyes:

    But we'll go with it: it's ok for animals to die because it's a "nuisance and extra cost to other people to do something different"? But it's NOT ok for them to die for people's pleasure UNLESS that pleasure is being pretty much the main reason for 99% of meat eaters' choice to eat meat?

    You don't seem very consistent here.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sabian92)
    What makes me laugh is that that show is on TV then American people wonder why the world laughs at them for being the fattest people on the planet.
    I second that, not only is a very significant proportion of their population obese, but more importantly significantly obese. However I would like to take a step back and say that with what I believe to be 1/3 of primary school pupils leaving overweight we may be heading in the same direction. Yes the show is ridiculous, I look and see that 99% of the time what he is eating not only in the challenges, but in the diners he visits, would feed my family, 20 year old brother included! It isn't right to see so many people starving to death including in the supposedly civilised country we call the USA when others are eating their way to long term health disorders and ultimately an early grave. But hey that is just my opinion and it is not the case that everyone who is obese is that way due to man v food behaviours, I like to think I am not one to stereotype and you can't just assume everyone is greedy and selfish, however it is the case that some people are, that is the truth, it is not nice but then not all realities are. I would be curious to know if my opinions would be different if I were obese as it always easier to say others are wrong when you do not fall into the same category. This is not meant to cause offence to anyone and I apologise if it does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Frankly I find it disgusting that you used a computer to make this thread, in full knowledge of the fact that millions of people around the world are too poor or remote to have access to such electronic facilities. I wonder what they'd say if they saw you using such a useful resource for such frivolous purposes.

    I don't like the program, it's not funny or entertaining, but attacking it on the basis that hungry people might not like it either is silly. It's not like he's physically snatching food out of the hands of African children.
    I didn't use a computer to post this thread . . .

    Did you use one to post that comment? in full knowledge that millions of people don't have a computer>
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    I didn't use a computer to post this thread . . .

    Did you use one to post that comment? in full knowledge that millions of people don't have a computer>
    I'm not the one complaining about western excess
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    The fact that it's a childlike interpretation of Africa's problems, wilfully ignorant of numerous factors that keep it in such a poor state.
    I don't believe it's a childlike interpretation of Africa's problems at all. It's more likely that 'educated' and 'enlightened' liberals such as yourself simply cannot come to terms with possibility that Africa is a poor continent because the inhabitants are extraordinarily bad at creating wealth, so you cast around for all sorts of complicated and extravagent explanations in an attempt to obfuscate the simple truth.



    Good for them. Hong Kong and the entirety of Africa are hardly comparable models of post-colonialist society.
    I know. I used Hong Kong as an example of an economically successful former colony, thus disproving your theory that 19th century imperialism = 21st century hardship.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evalilyXOX)
    Well you are obviously a vegetarian or a vegan !!
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.