Vegetarian Discussion: Easy McTarget

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Martin Willett
2007-02-03 03:45:46 EST
Why do people think that certain companies and individuals can be
ruthlessly attacked at every turn?

Is there only one capitalist company in the world today that sells food?
McDonald's is constantly attacked for everything they do as if they were
deliberately trying to destroy the planet, pauper their employees and
poison their customers.

It cannot simply be tall poppy syndrome, that any successful company
will attract people willing to attack it shamelessly at every
opportunity and for every single decision it makes. People don't do the
same thing with Sony, Disney and Ford. There must be at least one other
element in the mix. I can see several:

• Meat
• America
• Class

McDonald's is public enemy number one for many vegetarians because it
sells meat, successfully, in huge quantities. Many vegetarians bitterly
resent the fact that any meat tastes good and people enjoy eating it.
Now that they have decided not to eat meat for whatever reason (often
nothing to do with the reasons they tell themselves or others) they want
to stop anybody else eating meat, or failing that to stop anybody from
enjoying eating meat. McDonald's represents the devil to these
vegetarians. McDonald's makes eating meat easy, cheap and delicious.
McDonald's makes eating meat guilt-free as there are no animals or bones
on view. This incenses vegetarians, how can they fight against such an
adversary? Easy, attack everything they do, everywhere, at all times, at
every opportunity: the packaging is misleading, the lighting is too
bright, the colour scheme is garish, the uniforms are demeaning, only
jerks work there, there's no ingredients list in braille on the
packaging. Why is there any packaging at all? There's too much salt on
the fries. Why don't they let you put your own salt on? There's too much
packaging, why don't they put the sugar in your coffee for you? The
coffee is too hot, there should be a warning. Stupid bloody warning, who
doesn't know that it's hot? They don't really care, they only do that
not to get sued. They only make it that hot to make more money, the
bastards. How much? Is there anybody serving here?
Other people hate McDonald's because it represents some amorphous
ill-defined threat of globalization, capitalism or American cultural
imperialism. What? McDonald's should not be McDonald's because they
don't like the ideas they think it represents, it should just not be
McDonald's, don't do it. Why? Why would McDonald's decide not to operate
in the way it knows how in places that it could make money? Just to make
some people who don't like capitalism or America feel better in some
ill-defined way? There's a hell of a lot of people who think
anti-capitalists should just not do it either.


McDonald's is where poor people eat. By disdaining McDonald's they put
themselves clearly in a superior social position. Similar reasoning
accounts for the vitriol heaped upon Wal*Mart. It is amazing how a place
so many people wouldn't be seen dead in is the focus of so much concern.

To make everybody happy McDonald's should:

Make more profit

Charge less

Make meat more expensive

Stop selling meat

Attract a better class of customer

Go out of business

Sell only Organic Vegan food

Become a workers' co-operative

Take action over obesity

Serve bigger burgers

Serve better quality meat

Offer better value

Show concern for the environment

Offer a simple menu, the same everywhere

Stop pretending to care about the environment and obesity

Serve coffee modestly hot that stays at that temperature for an hour, in
a simpler spill-proof cup. With free refills.

Offer more choice of food

Waste less food

Serve local food

Cook everything fresh to order

Serve people faster

Serve food in packaging that finds its own way to the recycling centre

Fry only in low fat Organic Vegan water

Stop pandering to the fads of people who don't even eat there

Serve food freshly cooked that isn't too hot or reheated or kept warm or
wasted

Come on. Get real for a few moments here. McDonald's sells food that can
be eaten with one hand, no teeth and your eyes on the road. Everything
that isn't wrapper needs to be edible, and everything needs a wrapper to
keep it warm until it gets home or to stop flavours contaminating each
other. People want the food cheap and delicious and they associate
getting meat in it with offering value. McDonald's gives them meat, pure
beef without offal, rusk, fillers, binders, water-retaining bulking
agents and mechanically recovered chicken, which you cannot say for the
burgers that are sold out of dirty vans by ill-trained vendors in Britain.

McDonald's makes burgers out of pure beef. Of course it doesn't use the
best cuts of the most expensive carcases, the stuff is chopped and
shaped and served with onion, ketchup, mustard and a slice of dill
flavoured pickled gherkin, it doesn't have to have a lot of the finest
beef flavours to make a satisfying sandwich. And what kind of an expert
chef needs to use the most expensive ingredients in order to make
something worth eating? Taking only the finest and freshest ingredients
to make something to eat isn't great cooking, it's great shopping.
Making something delicious with the finest cuts of meat and the freshest
vegetables and herbs is not a challenge. Making profits selling a
cheeseburger for half the price of a cheese sandwich on white bread from
a supermarket, that is catering. Respect.

If you want a better tasting burger order a quarter pounder, which is
made of better quality beef and has proper onion on it and served on a
more substantial bun. What it doesn't have on it is stuff that sounds
like a good idea but doesn't contribute to the experience of eating a
burger that has been waiting for you to buy it. Lettuce and tomato might
seem like a good idea if you are cooking fresh for each order but that
isn't the McDonald's way. Even when I cook burgers for myself fresh I
find that salad falls out and cool salad and hot burger rapidly turn
into something unappetizingly luke warm with congealing grease.

Food snobs think burgers are disgusting because “you don't know what's
in them” but they wax lyrical about all kinds of offal, whitebait (have
you ever met a whitebait-filleter?), pâté, traditional pies and pasties,
witchetty grubs, snails and even faggots (don't even go there). If you
can eat a filter-feeding bivalve bottom-dweller alive and crunch the
head of a shrimp that has spent its life treading water by the sewage
outflow pipe why is the thought of what might be in a 100% pure beef
patty something to keep you awake at night? The sweetest meat is nearest
the bone but mechanically recovered meat is anathema. They will crunch
through the ribcage of some small gamebird (lead shot and all), make
stock from stuff your cat would shun and strip a poussin clean but worry
what goes into a McNugget because “you can't tell what you're eating”.

If you want mysterious cheap cuts of meats and offals you really
wouldn't want to eat on their own order a haggis, don't bother with
McDonald's. I wonder, in two hundred years will people look back on the
Big Mac and the Turkey Twizzler with the dewy-eyed nostalgia they now
look on the haggis, the stargazy pie, the pastie and the faggot?
Traditional working class food: wholesome and hearty.

It seems the food snobs will eat anything as long as the oiks seem to be
giving it a miss these days. Jamie Oliver will curl his lip with the
disgust at the “donkey bollocks” that go into Turkey Twizzlers but will
go misty-eyed at the idea of traditional Italian sausages with raw
donkey meat or eating testicles as a delicacy. British working class
people eating donkey bollocks is bad, foreign peasants eating the offals
of ethnic beasts of burden is good.

In the time I have been eating McDonald's I have seen the menu improve,
the value improve, the packaging become more biodegradable and
recyclable. You can get salads and orange juice and milk and fruit. All
the eggs are free range. McDonald's sell cheap meat-based fast food and
they do it well. They don't claim to offer everything you need for a
well-balanced diet so that you can live off the stuff and never eat
anything else any more than a fish and chip shop does. Give them a break.

If you don't want to eat at McDonald's feel free not to. Listening to
anti-capitalist Vegan snobs tell me how terrible McDonald's is and how
they should change is like listening to the Pope describing sex
positions or Osama Bin Ladin's recipes for cocktails.

If nothing else just think, if it wasn't for McDonalds you'd have to use
regular public toilets.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Alan Moorman
2007-02-04 20:38:31 EST
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:45:46 +0000, Martin Willett
<*g@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Why do people think that certain companies and individuals can be
>ruthlessly attacked at every turn?
>
>Is there only one capitalist company in the world today that sells food?
>McDonald's is constantly attacked for everything they do as if they were
>deliberately trying to destroy the planet, pauper their employees and
>poison their customers.
>
>It cannot simply be tall poppy syndrome, that any successful company
>will attract people willing to attack it shamelessly at every
>opportunity and for every single decision it makes.

You just answered your own question.

It IS the "tall poppy syndrome."

It's that simple.


Alan

==

It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.

--------------------------------------------------------


Pete ‹•¿•›
2007-02-05 04:22:49 EST
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:38:31 -0600, Alan Moorman <amoorman@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:45:46 +0000, Martin Willett
><mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Why do people think that certain companies and individuals can be
>>ruthlessly attacked at every turn?
>>
>>Is there only one capitalist company in the world today that sells food?
>>McDonald's is constantly attacked for everything they do as if they were
>>deliberately trying to destroy the planet, pauper their employees and
>>poison their customers.

They are one of the biggest companies in the world involved in factory
farming animals, and consequently damaging our planet in doing so,
whilst proclaiming to be holier than thou!

>>It cannot simply be tall poppy syndrome, that any successful company
>>will attract people willing to attack it shamelessly at every
>>opportunity and for every single decision it makes.
>
>You just answered your own question.
>
>It IS the "tall poppy syndrome."
>
>It's that simple.
>

Putting the record straight is not a crime!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/082800-02.htm

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

They are also turning society in a world of tubbies.
--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.

Martin Willett
2007-02-05 16:36:02 EST
Yawn.

Usual suspects. Usual charges. Usual conclusions.


--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

D*@.
2007-02-05 19:31:45 EST
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:22:49 +0000, "Pete ‹(•¿•)›" <farmingfacts@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:38:31 -0600, Alan Moorman <amoorman@visi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:45:46 +0000, Martin Willett
>><mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Why do people think that certain companies and individuals can be
>>>ruthlessly attacked at every turn?
>>>
>>>Is there only one capitalist company in the world today that sells food?
>>>McDonald's is constantly attacked for everything they do as if they were
>>>deliberately trying to destroy the planet, pauper their employees and
>>>poison their customers.
>
>They are one of the biggest companies in the world involved in factory
>farming animals, and consequently damaging our planet in doing so,
>whilst proclaiming to be holier than thou!

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Alan Moorman
2007-02-06 11:50:45 EST
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:

> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
of energy to make.

Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
etc. The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!

Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
consumption.

I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
of us eating vegetarian (only).

Alan

==

It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.

--------------------------------------------------------


Ontheroad
2007-02-06 12:09:38 EST

"Alan Moorman" <amoorman@visi.com> wrote in \ufffd
>
> I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:
>
> Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
> grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
> of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
> them. Lots of petroleum burned.
===================
Actually, you're wrong. In the US all beef cattle are raised on pasture or
range. Then, only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots. Continuing to buy
into the propaganda doesn't make any changes. Grass-fed beef is a growing
commodity, and buying it is really the only way to affect a change in the
'typical' production methods.





> Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
> sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
> made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
> of energy to make.
>
> Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
> etc. The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
> animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!
>
> Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
> and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
> consumption.
========================
Again, you are wrong. being vegetarian does no such thing, and in many
cases causes even more animals to die and more environmental damage. All
crop production is by definition habitat destruction and environmental
damage. There are meats that can be consumed that require almost no active
involvement of people in producing the meat. The same cannot be said for
any crop production.



>
> I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
> of us eating vegetarian (only).
> ====================
And there are better arguments for eating a mix of veggies and certain
meats. I can replace 100s of 1000s of calories from mono-culture crop
production with the death of one grass-fed cow. The mechanized,
petro-chemical intensive crop farming is far worse to the environment, and
to more animals, than the grass-fed, chemical-free beef I eat.



> Alan
>
> ==
>
> It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
> I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
> and let the problem take care of itself.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>



Pltrgyst
2007-02-06 13:49:12 EST
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman <amoorman@visi.com> wrote:

>I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
>of us eating vegetarian (only).

I'm all for eating vegetarians. It would solve two major planetary problems:
food production , and overpopulation.

Pity you still eat meat, Alan -- the kettle's on, and we're looking for
volunteers.

-- Larry

Pete ‹•¿•›
2007-02-06 15:15:24 EST
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman <amoorman@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>>steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>>get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>>over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>>get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>>machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>>contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
>I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:
>
>Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
>grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
>of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
>them. Lots of petroleum burned.
>
>Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
>sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
>made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
>of energy to make.
>
>Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
>etc. The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
>animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!
>
>Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
>and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
>consumption.
>
>I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
>of us eating vegetarian (only).
>
>Alan
>

Makes sense.
--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.

Alan Moorman
2007-02-06 20:38:09 EST
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:09:38 GMT, "ontheroad"
<*p@stop.com> wrote:

>
>"Alan Moorman" <amoorman@visi.com> wrote in ·
>>
>> I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:
>>
>> Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
>> grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
>> of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
>> them. Lots of petroleum burned.
>===================
>Actually, you're wrong. In the US all beef cattle are raised on pasture or
>range. Then, only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots. Continuing to buy
>into the propaganda doesn't make any changes. Grass-fed beef is a growing
>commodity, and buying it is really the only way to affect a change in the
>'typical' production methods.
>
>

Grass-fed beef for the table is a small niche market, at
present.
>
Alan

==

It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.

--------------------------------------------------------

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron