babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » body and soul   » How Many Big Macs would you Eat?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How Many Big Macs would you Eat?
Eauz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3057

posted 25 March 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for Eauz   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Eat Big Macs!

and Eat more HERE

Ohhh man, this is pathetic... I can't believe he is still only 180 pounds.


From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 25 March 2003 03:59 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does he keep track of the McLyposuction too?
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 25 March 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does he keep track of the McLyposuction too?
If he's the same guy I heard interviewed on CBC radio a few months ago, he's really tall and has a high metabolism rate. Obviously most humans wouldn't be able to live on his diet.

I think it's really pathetic that someone would be so set in his ways as to want to eat the same thing every day. In the CBC interview, he sounded like a very boring person.

Apparantly the McDonald's corporation wanted nothing to do with him because he's a bit of a weirdo (but of course the articles above say they wanted to use him in court to show that their food doesn't make people obese).


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 25 March 2003 04:17 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Too bad.

Sounds like he'd make a great McDonalds version of Jared.

"Well, I been eatin McDonalds Big Macs everyday for years and while I haven't lost any weight like that Jared fellow, I ain't gained none either!"


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 25 March 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
19,000 Big Macs! Oooooogh...
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 25 March 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obviously most humans wouldn't be able to live on his diet.

maybe that's the answer: he was hatched in a McLab to be a PR stunt.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 March 2003 12:58 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ohhh man, this is pathetic... I can't believe he is still only 180 pounds.

These two Big Macs have a combined total of 1148 calories - hardly an overindulgence for a 6 foot man.

quote:
If he's the same guy I heard interviewed on CBC radio a few months ago, he's really tall and has a high metabolism rate. Obviously most humans wouldn't be able to live on his diet.

He's 6 feet tall, so maybe it's not the same man. And it's hardly "obvious" that most humans couldn't live on this diet! Granted, more calories are derived from fat than are considered healthy by the Canada Food Guide (about 5 grams of fat per 100 calories versus the ideal of 3), but it's not poison. And I doubt that this man is some special medical oddity.

quote:
"Well, I been eatin McDonalds Big Macs everyday for years and while I haven't lost any weight like that Jared fellow, I ain't gained none either!"

Hehe. Why are you characterizing him as a yokel?

quote:
maybe that's the answer: he was hatched in a McLab to be a PR stunt.

No, he's just a man with an odd eating habit who's demonstrating that the line of "logic" that starts with a restaurant you dislike, and "inevitably" ends with forced obesity, isn't logical at all.

You can get fat on anything.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 March 2003 03:22 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
These two Big Macs have a combined total of 1148 calories - hardly an overindulgence for a 6 foot man.

That's JUST the Big Macs, never mind the super-size coke or the fries.

I figure an "average" McDonald's diet could run easily into the 2500-3000 calorie per day range.

The US Dept of Agriculture has worked out that on average you need to consume no more than 1500 calories per day just to not gain weight if you do nothing all day other than standard sedentary-ish stuff.

And correction: there are some people who just don't get fat at all unless their metabolism goes all to hell, which usually only happens after a really bad illness or some similar event.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Natalie Anne Lanoville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 626

posted 26 March 2003 03:42 AM      Profile for Natalie Anne Lanoville     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most sources I am familiar with list the following rules of thumb for caloric intake (subject to actual body mass and other factors)

Women: Maintenance level: 1950 calories/day. Weight loss level: 1500 calories/day.

Men: Maintenance level: 2550 calories/day.
Weight loss level: 2000 calories/day.

Active people are instructed to increase those numbers accordingly.

Natalie


From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 26 March 2003 06:10 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A large pizza wouldn't come in at 2000 calories would it?

......just wondering.......


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Natalie Anne Lanoville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 626

posted 26 March 2003 07:21 AM      Profile for Natalie Anne Lanoville     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You mean the whole thing? Oh, I think so.

The bad news about Pizza

Natalie


From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 07:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those numbers seem kind of low to me, Natalie. I seem to remember it being around 2500 calories for women and 3000 for men to maintain weight.

But as my source is I Read It Somewhere(tm), I won't swear to that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 07:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here we go. A calculator by the American Cancer Society. A 150 lb woman with a "light activity" lifestyle needs a little over 2100 calories per day to maintain her weight. A 190 lb man needs almost 3000 with a "light activity" lifestyle.

And then I forgot to put in the link. Duh.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_6_1x_Calorie_Calculator.asp

Also, here's an exercise "calculator":

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_6_1x_Exercise_Counts.asp

[ 26 March 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 26 March 2003 09:43 AM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He's 6 feet tall, so maybe it's not the same man.

So he's tall, not "really" tall. It's the same guy.
quote:

it's hardly "obvious" that most humans couldn't live on this diet!


It's not just calories and fat to consider. There's all sorts of crap in fast food that's unhealthy, especially when consumed in large ammounts over a long period of time. There's also the issue of what he's not getting in his diet by eating the same stuff every day. It's not just because it's from McDonalds in particular.
quote:

Why are you characterizing him as a yokel?


Judging by what I've heard, I wouldn't consider him a yokel. I'd call him a square, a stiff, a geek, or something similar.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 March 2003 10:26 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's JUST the Big Macs, never mind the super-size coke or the fries.

The articles don't mention anything about fries, and you can't blame the contents of Coke on McDonalds... assuming he even buys it there. Coke, and other non-diet soft drinks, are nothing more than carbonated sugar-water, and anyone who gets fat drinking gallons of pop should have nobody to sue but their own poor judgement; it's not much different from drinking honey from the jar.

quote:
It's not just calories and fat to consider. There's all sorts of crap in fast food that's unhealthy, especially when consumed in large ammounts over a long period of time.

Perhaps, but insofar as we have a news story about a man eating only this diet and surviving, and NO news stories about people eating fast food and dying of it, it's still not "obvious" that someone cannot live on Big Macs alone. In fact it seems more obvious that one could! (although I'd agree that nobody should really want to.)


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Funk Soul Brother
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3864

posted 26 March 2003 11:27 AM      Profile for Funk Soul Brother     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Big Mac:

Protein: 26.0 grams
Carbs: 45.0 grams
Fat: 31.0 grams
Cholesterol: 85 mgs
Sodium: 1070 grams
Fiber: 3 grams

560 Calories

In my opinion, there is too much fat, cholesterol, calories and sodium is this items. Also not enough fiber. The carb's consist of white bread, so the GI must be huge.

Not very good for you.

[ 26 March 2003: Message edited by: Funk Soul Brother ]


From: Tugging on your sleeve... | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 26 March 2003 11:41 AM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not to mention this diet is seriously lacking in things like fruit, vegetables and whole grains, which do good things like reduce your risk of cancer and other nasties, as well as providing vital vitamins and minerals.

Re: soft drinks as no worse than honey from the jar, that's incorrect - caffeniated soft drinks have been shown to leach calcium from our bodies; honey, while being a pure sweetner, also contains trace elements that are necessary for a healthy body.

Possibly this guy eats a far more boring (and in my mind just plain gross - "special sauce" looks like cat vomit in my mind) but no worse diet than many other people in this world - I think that means this is a sad day for this world. There's something wrong with our society in which behaviour like this is feasible - he's simply an exagerration of the norm.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 26 March 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As Doc said, some people simply don't put on weight - something about their "set point" or metabolism. I work with a guy who lives on things like takeout lasagna and pizza and drinks Coca-cola and beer, and he is skinny as a rod. That doesn't mean such a diet isn't clogging up his arteries. As swirly pointed out, it is also short on cancer-fighting green vegetables.

Pizza: Pizza is basically bread with stuff on it. How healthful, and how caloric it is depends on the quality of the dough and what is put on it. Almost all takeout pizza is made with crappy white flour. And you don't even want to know what they put in pepperoni.

Make your own pizza: very simple really. You can make the dough in the bread machine if you prefer, or make up a batch and freeze it in serving-sized balls. Just wholegrain, organic flour, some yeast, olive oil, water, a bit of salt.

Then top it with healthy, tasty stuff. Don't overdo the vegetables, makes it too soggy. Some pregrilled red pepper is nice (a Mediterranean staple), so is some onion, garlic of course. Herbs - oregano and rosemary are classic. Not too much cheese - cheese is full of calcium and protein, but also very high in fat - a concentrated food. I use goat cheese for reasons of lactose intolerance - you can get good goat mozzarella and other appropriate cheeses now. If you like meat, remember that ham is much less fatty than pepperoni or other sausage.

Serve with a nice salad. Yum.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 March 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't care what anyone says. I love Big Macs. They're delicious. I'm usually pretty strict about what I eat, but the rare craving usually involves them.

Think I'll go have two now.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 March 2003 01:36 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Careful Tommy: if you make it clear that you're doing this out of free will, you won't be able to sue them later if you gain weight!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hate all the meat products from fast food restaurants - I can't stomach them anymore, even though as a teenager I used to crave quarter pounders with cheese.

But the fries? Oh jebus, I LOVE the fries.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And correction: there are some people who just don't get fat at all unless their metabolism goes all to hell, which usually only happens after a really bad illness or some similar event.

I'd venture a guess that dieting messes up more metabolisms than illness. I have a couple of friends that are battling obesity as a result of (usually recommended) dieting over the years. Lose 20 lbs in 2 weeks, gain 40 over the next few months, lose 30 in 4 weeks, gain 60... Yo-yo dieting is so incredibly hazardous.

Which is why I'd say you're better off eating a sensible level of calories and upping your exercise. Physical activity is the answer.

To get back to the topic -- Sparky the Mac-eater... We don't know much about his physical activity habits, if he eats much else (other than his Big Macs and cola), etc. If he's not eating fries with them, if he doesn't eat breakfast, etc, will not put him in a situation where he will become obese, even with an average metabolic rate. He still won't be overly healthy on this diet.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 26 March 2003 04:05 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which is why I'd say you're better off eating a sensible level of calories and upping your exercise. Physical activity is the answer.

And cut down on carbs, sugar and processed white flour.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 March 2003 04:05 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually Mr.Magoo, I went to great lengths to avoid (create?) any potential problems. I ate my 2 Big Macs (and, ummmmmm they were great as always. I wonder how they get them the same every time?), followed by a little cheesburger (love the pickles), washed down with a Coke and fries.

Meanwhile my lawyer sat beside me making sure I wasn't discharging any future legal options by constantly asking me after each bite "Do you know what your doing? Good, proceed."

I also have a incompetence defense going by taking 6 sinus tablets with the Coke, which I noted didn't have a disclaimer on the product itself. I assume its soluble. The tablets themselves didn't say I could do that either. HAH.

I figure I'm covered.

One thing I've noticed since you pointed it out though, how come no one ever says, hey everyone, lets boycott Carl Jr's and Pepsi, or Wendy's and Cott's, or A&W and Jones Soda? How about White Spot and RC? Its always the usual suspects.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 26 March 2003 04:11 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've heard people boycott Pepsi. And Yum! foods (A&W, Pizza Hut, KFC, Taco Bell and Long John Silvers) who by the way claim their paper products are totally recyclable but won't pay me for pointingout that they should label them with this info.

Nobody would boycott Jones because their small fish. And they're only selling small bottle of pop, not trying to steadily increase our intake of soda whilst reducing the price to make us gigantoids.

But I think Coke and McDs get the brunt of it because they're the ones who are the most in our faces. Perhaps if they cut down on the advertising, people wouldn't feel so threatened.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 March 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And cut down on carbs, sugar and processed white flour.

Well, I was trying to avoid going into my nutrition rant, just sticking to the calories-in, calories-out thing... Obviously, eating McDonald's to the exclusion of nearly all else (or any other fast-food chain's name you'd like to plug in) is not a good choice for a sensible diet.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 March 2003 04:26 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey it worked for Jughead.

Sorry, I apologise in advance.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 March 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nobody would boycott Jones because their small fish. And they're only selling small bottle of pop, not trying to steadily increase our intake of soda whilst reducing the price to make us gigantoids.

Quite right Dale. As well, at their prices not many could afford Giganto-Gulp portions anyway.

A litre of Jones would cost almost $7.00. And who says gas is expensive. Actually considering its still the same old sugar, water, and chemical soup someone should boycott them for gouging.

Edit: my spelling sucks because I take too many over the counter meds.

[ 26 March 2003: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 26 March 2003 04:50 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And cut down on carbs, sugar and processed white flour.

Yup. Because of a recurrance of inflammatory bowel disease, I'm off all complex carbs -- starches, lactose, and sucrose. I have trimmed down some quite quickly.

A friend has gone to a couple of MDs with a specialty in the area and the diet portion looks a lot like what Andy suggested. What has also helped is a change in birth control methods (from depro to the pill), and the treatment of a sleep disorder (in her case Upper Airway Resistence Syndrome).


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 March 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
how come no one ever says, hey everyone, lets boycott Carl Jr's and Pepsi,

Hehe. This is actually one of the reasons why you'll always find me on a McDonald's thread. I'm fascinated with people's fascination with McDonalds (also the Gap, Nike and Coke).

I think Dale came close with...

quote:
But I think Coke and McDs get the brunt of it because they're the ones who are the most in our faces.

... at least insofar as recognizing that it's NOT because McDonalds is the only fast food restaurant to fry food, or serve meat, or discourage unions, or any of the other red herrings; it's definitely a personal thing. My personal feeling is that it's kind of an "underdog syndrome" in reverse. Same with Coke vs. Pepsi, Nike vs. Adidas, or Gap vs. Club Monaco. The companies are very similar, and yet only one of each gets consistently targetted as "the enemy".

At this point, if someone tries to make a point by using only the "usual suspects" I tune out; their analysis won't be sophisticated enough to be worth my time if they can't see past 4 companies to a bigger picture.

That said, one question I've asked dozens of times is why activists seem so fixated on these companies based (ostensibly) on their huge profits, harmful products, bad labour practices, marketing to kids, or shady business dealings, but activists seldom if ever target Big Tobacco. Certainly their products are far more harmful, their profits more obscene, their marketing to children better documented, and their backroom conspiracy and lies are almost a cliche.

In fact, not only does Big Tobacco never make the list of "usual suspects" for a boycott, I've actually seen plenty of activists having a smoke while marching! Funny, huh?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't they?



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 March 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough (& Goddess bless Adbusters), but I stand by my choice of phrase, "seldom if ever". I think the number of anti-tobacco boycotts and campaigns pales beside those for McDonalds, Coke, and the Gap.

Personally I think it's nothing more than a plain ol' conflict of interest for many; either they smoke and aren't going to quit on principle, or they don't want to be the one to criticize smoking at meetings, marches, etc., and incur the resentment of comrades who smoke. Woe to the activist who shows up for a planning meeting wearing Nikes and a Gap shirt, eating a Big Xtra and washing it down with a Coke, but I suspect that slipping outside for a butt is still considered perfectly acceptable.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 March 2003 05:45 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree Mr.Mcgoo. When you look at the numbers of people who smoke, which is what, 35% of the population (or 10,000,000 Canadians!!!!), and considering the number of cigarettes smokers consume, its probably one of the biggest consumer items sold today.

And while there is some protest over Big Tobacco's activities, there is a notable dearth of consistant, hard hitting action.

But then again, it is someone choice to smoke. Quitting is a whole other ball of wax.

Never see beer being boycotted either. I'd drink to that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 26 March 2003 05:48 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, nicotine IS a highly addictive drug...

Methinks this is rhetoric of the "if you're so vegetarian and all, why are you wearing a leather belt" school. Interesting. Mostly irrelevant.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 05:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I think most people get addicted to tobacco before they become activists.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 March 2003 06:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Methinks this is rhetoric of the "if you're so vegetarian and all, why are you wearing a leather belt" school. Interesting. Mostly irrelevant.

Irrelevant, or did you mean inconvenient? Those who want to claim a moral high-ground have the burden of consistency. If they're going to judge what I eat, what I buy, and to whom I give my money, then they'd better practice what they preach. Note that this only applies to those preaching. If you wear a leather belt, and don't mind me eating what was left over from the making of that belt, then this doesn't apply to you.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's an argument that has always bugged me with regards to vegetarianism. These days it's almost impossible to be completely vegan in every single thing you own. That doesn't mean that a vegan is being inconsistent. It means that instead of being responsible for the death of 100 animals a year, they will be responsible for one animal, or whatever. And most vegans, if they had a non-animal choice readily available, would choose it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 March 2003 06:12 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. I'm not going to fault anyone for eating a candy with gelatin as its sixth ingredient or anything, but when it comes to clothing there are options for everything. Belts, jackets, shoes... there's no article of clothing that simply must be made of dead animal.

I had a vegetarian g/f a long time ago who consciously shopped for leather shoes, even though it contradicted her morals. I asked her why, and she said "have you ever tried to find fashionable shoes that aren't leather?" Well, give me fashion or give me death, huh? Have you ever tried to find a steak that isn't made of cow?

I've never understood why, to some, eating the inside of an animal for food is morally more corrupt than wearing the outside of it as a fashion statement.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, although I make an effort not to eat very much meat (for both reasons of personal taste and aversion due to it being dead animal), when I have a choice between buying leather birks or synthetic ones, I buy leather, because the last synthetic ones I got lasted 2 years, and the leather ones before that lasted 7 years. It's not a fashion statement for me (god, if you could see my footwear, you'd know it!), it's economics and frankly, it's also about waste. Three and a half times less landfill.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 26 March 2003 06:40 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In my experience, that kind of "gotcha" morality - a hilarious recent one n babble involved Chomsky's 450,000 sq. foot mansion and fleet of yachts - is just rationalization to avoid uncomfortable challenges. Does the taint of tobacco really destroy the credibility of the attack on rampant consumerism? If we retreat into the absolute purity of ashrams and hermit caves, who will ensure a better future for those yet to come?

edited to add: For sure, there's a very strong argument for natural - animal products included - clothing over synthetic. Oil being a biggie. Landfill another.

[ 26 March 2003: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 26 March 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I usually seek out leather shoes, for reasons that have little to do with fashion. I have a touch of arthritis in a foot (oh, nothing serious) and leather shapes itself to one's foot - plastic doesn't. I buy "sensible" shoes like Clarks and Rohdes, wear them for years. Can't afford a lot of good-quality walking shoes.

I tend to like nylon handbags and backpacks, but aren't those made from a petroleum derivative?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Natalie Anne Lanoville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 626

posted 26 March 2003 07:02 PM      Profile for Natalie Anne Lanoville     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Chomsky's 450,000 sq. foot mansion

lol...yeah, and his address is 'General Delivery, West Edmonton Mall'


From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 26 March 2003 08:13 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds like Bill Gates' mansion.

I wonder why on earth anyone, even fabulously wealthy and able to afford lots of staff, would WANT such a big place. It doesn't appeal to me at all. If I had money it would be quality of abode and LOCATION that would appeal to me, but not a vast space.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 08:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For sure, there's a very strong argument for natural - animal products included - clothing over synthetic.

True, but wouldn't the tanning process for leather, and the pollution caused by processing for other natural fibres pretty much negate any benefit?

I'm asking seriously because I don't know.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 27 March 2003 12:05 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was just contemplating a world without the awful caloric, artery clogging pepperoni pizza.


I think the survivors would envy the dead.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 April 2003 09:08 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Everything you ever wanted to know about what goes into McDonald's food.

quote:
BBQ Sauce: Water, high fructose corn syrup, tomato paste, brown sugar, apple cider vinegar, distilled vinegar, onions, modified food starch, salt, molasses, Worcestershire sauce (distilled vinegar, molasses, corn syrup, water, salt, caramel color, garlic powder, sugar, spices, anchovies, tamarind, natural flavors (vegetable source)), natural flavors (maltodextrin, chicken fat, salt, yeast extract, modified food starch, rendered beef fat, beef extract, garlic*, beef stock, sesame seed oil, egg yolk*, alpha tocopherol as an antioxidant), natural hickory smoke flavor, caramel color, spices, soybean oil, chili pepper, extractives of paprika, onion*, sodium benzoate (preservative), mustard flour, garlic*, citric acid, propylene glycol alginate, ground celery. * dehydrated

That's just an example.

Another thing you'll notice about the ingredients lists is that several of the food items have dimethylpolysiloxane in them.

To be rather blunt, when you eat those items you're basically eating a derivative of epoxy.

Yeah, that stuff.

Or, as I like to put it, you're eating gas chromatography columns.

[ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca