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

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calpurnia)
    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.
    <br />
    <br />

    Precisely !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calpurnia)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calpurnia)
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calpurnia)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    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.
    Aside from empirical questions you're raising, Zimbabwe is kind of a special case, if you will. I'm referring more to the countries that ARE trying to do well, and how they are sometimes exploited/prevented from achieving their potential. I'm not explicitly blaming the US for all African problems, if anything, the thing they are most guilty of is not being a big enough part of a solution. In the AGOA I keep banging on about, Africa was denied free access to American markets for their coffee, Africa's biggest export iirc, because it would undermine American producers. I understand that this may just seem like sensible business, but perpetuating a world hostile to the US is perhaps not the best long-term plan, when fairer agreements could probably be made.

    One of the issues with the US and its wonderful ideals, in this case "free markets", is that actually the US doesn't care that much about the universality of the idea, just that the idea works for America. This is also true of "freedom of the press", "human rights" and "democracy". All of which have been undermined by various US exercises.

    As for leaders who "don't know what they're doing"... well, I'm sure you can make your own punchline to that one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    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!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    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!
    FFS it's not being hypocritical. I said it's ok to kill SOME animals because we need protein and meat is the easiest way to get protein. Therefore it is utilitarian to kill some animals for meat as it's the easiest/cheapest way to do so. But we should only kill and eat what we need. Not enough for 6 people to eat which is then eaten by 1 person for entertainment.

    Your comments about my life and what i should do are very naive and also very wrong. You know virtually nothing about me yet are telling me what to do. I cant do anything about food shopping when i dont have my own money and no way of getting to the supermarket and dad usually goes alone. I eat meat at home as I'm not a spoilt brat, I eat what I'm given and am thankful for having more than most people in the world. If i had complete control of my diet i would probably have vegetarian meals most of the time, although i was anaemic when younger so do have to make sure I eat enough iron. And BTW nuts are quite expensive per 100g . . . Also, yes i do manage to eat vegetarian meals sometimes, but they are usually lacking in protein which is why I don't cook myself veggie meals all the time, else I'd be anaemic again.

    I'll take one guess as to who negged me. Why. You told me what to do with my life when you don't know any of the circumstances I live in.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I love the show it's entertaining and a lot of the food looks nice. Also do you think of they stopped showing it that Americans would stop consuming they consume loads of the,worlds resources.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Me123456789)
    I like it.
    Why? It's gross, do you condone being disgusting?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariah246)
    Why? It's gross, do you condone being disgusting?
    Nope.
    I just like watching people eat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Me123456789)
    Nope.
    I just like watching people eat.
    Ok...Whatever floats your boat.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariah246)
    Ok...Whatever floats your boat.
    :yeah:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calpurnia)
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evalilyXOX)
    I was just saying that she is too uptight so plz calm down
    Nope, you definitely said "vegetarian"...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Me123456789)
    Nope.
    I just like watching people eat.
    And thats partly the problem. Eating is a necessity to keep you alive. You do it to survive, not being you find it entertaining to eat as much as possible.

    (Original post by evalilyXOX)
    I was just saying that she is too uptight so plz calm down
    How am I uptight for not wanting animals to die needlessly for entertainment. We ban animal fighting etc because it's cruel and pointless.

    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    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.
    Yes but I was making a particular point about these kinds of programmes that condone people eating enough food for a family, to themselves and treat the people who do it like heroes. TOWIE might be aweful but it doesn't condone eating huge amounts of food like MvF does.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.