Fat Shaming: What's NMA's Thoughts?

I'm always suggesting benevolent dictatorships to repair humanity and the world, but people always think I'm being tongue-in-cheek and ironical.
If I had said "evil dictatorships", then, sure, I'd be joking. But everyone benefits from being forced to do the correct thing. Now, I'm not an idiot, there will be some growing pains, some "BUT I WANNA - " that needs to be dealt with (prison camps), but otherwise I really mean "benevolent" when I say it.

It would be mathematically benevolent, incapable of corruption. A super-computer perhaps, but with a VERY specific program added to not suddenly consider "humanity a danger to itself, and therefore must be wiped out", since it would go against the whole benevolent-thing

Am I making sense? :0
 
Yeah, I would also like to be supreme ruler and force everyone to live according to what I consider to be good and fair (and trust me, many of you would had a very bad time in that world). But alas...

So if we live a certain way is because most of us choose to do so, and whatever consequence comes of it, we deserve, and so does nature for it was nature that allowed us to exist. Do you think I like president Macri's rampant destruction of my nation? No. But unless most fellow citizens decide to overthow him or something (which would be stupid because why the hell did you vote for him in the first place you idiot), then I'll have to sit down and watch how everything acomplished with somuch sacrifice in the last 12 years is dismantled piece by piece.
 
Well, like I said on another topic, both sides are equally annoying.

The people who obssess over other people's weight are insufferable and love to assume things about you to make themselves feel superior.

On the other hand the group that just cries about the word fat and wanting to be called sexy even as they have tights as wide as some people's bodies are also just cry babies, makes other fatties like me sound like whinny bitches or completely delusional about themselves, which feeds into the smugness of the first group.
 
(Just to be clear here - I could *not* be a "supreme ruler", I'm way too moody. During the course of a day, if particularily lame, I'll start to dish out life imprisonments for every offense I see. I refrain from death penalties, just to offer SOME self-restraint.
I'd end up Mussolini'd through the streets, and rightly so, having caused immesurable suffering - all in the name of good and justice D: )
 
Gonzalez said:
I have a perfect solution for all your problems: Comunism.

No, seriously. You want a regime powerful enough to ban meat consumption despite it would mean the diasppearance of an entire industry grown out of the public demand for meat products, and force everyone to be a vegan? Communist dictatorship is your solution, and all those who don't agree will be sent to a re-education camp.

Look at East Germany, they had only one single car model. Why? Having different models to choose from is a waste of resources! It's nature friendly!

So there, force everyone to live in a comunist dictatorship and you wont have to worry about saving the nature or squandering resources anymore!
Click to expand...
Uhu! Like laws and societies never change, right? You don't need to be in a communist state to ... ban something like, let us say, alcohol. The concept of prohibition isn't a novelly idea really. And before WW2 a lot of substances that are illegal today, could be bought and consumed by pretty much anyone. Remember heroin? That one used to be in choloates. Methamphetamin? It was known and sold as Pervetin in Germany, very popular among Pilots and Soldiers in the German army during WW2. They gave those pills the nick-name Panzerchocolate or Herman-Goering-Pills.

The question isn't one about opression. It's one about choice. If the facts are so strong, that no one with a sane mind can deny them, than you will see banns. That simple. Even on something that is as common like meat. You can bet your life on that one. Why? Because we can't just recreate the rainforest just like that. Something that took thousands of years to grow. Neither can we replace the oceans. At some point, you have to give nature a chance to regenerate. Even politicans, rich people and anyone else, needs a relatively clean earth to exist. And when shit hits the fan, and it suddenly is about their ass as well, you WILL see changes. Just like during the cold war, with nuclear weapons. Even if nuclear weapons didn't eliminated the concept of war as whole, they made it less likey to see it happen between super powers. If it's your own ass that is on the stake, you might think twice about starting a war with those weapons. And if the people in charge start to lose their children suddenly, due to bacteria now resistant even to ‘last resort’ antibiotics, you might see how fast certain laws can be pushed trough a congress.

Gonzalez said:
Yeah, I would also like to be supreme ruler and force everyone to live according to what I consider to be good and fair (and trust me, many of you would had a very bad time in that world). But alas...
Click to expand...
How much of all the problems havea direct affect on you though? I mean like seriously. I could be wrong, so sorry if it's not accurate. But you don't sound like someone who's currently suffering from a famine. Or living in a heavily polluted area where 40-50% of the children are born with disabilities due to lead and other heavy metals polluting the ground water.

Maybe we can talk again about, I dun care! Trololo! We deserve all of this, after you had to live in those places for a couple of years. I mean why not? I am sure Chernobyle has some of the cheapest real estate prices right now.
 
Last edited:
TransgenderVaultDeweller said:
Telling people to toughen up is pretty stupid as well. It's not even advice and lacks empathy. Nothing actually gets solved when you just wave your hand and be brick wall about it.
Click to expand...
I'd say to a certain extent, yeah. But at some point that might be all there is to it.
Sure, if somebody is constantly being derided and attacked verbally (or otherwise) then something extra would most likely have to be done to resolve it and probably with outside help.

But sometimes, especially on the internet these days, it kinda is up to a certain individual to toughen up. Because not everybody can be catered to in all aspects, at all times, in every location.

And if it is on the internet it should be pretty easy to just remove one's self from most kinds of altercations. And sure, they shouldn't have to, but sometimes that's all there is.

Things will get a little more trick in real life situations where it's not as easy to disengage. (Or may not be as easy to.)
 
Crni Vuk said:
Uhu! Like laws and societies never change, right? You don't need to be in a communist state to ... ban something like, let us say, alcohol. The concept of prohibition isn't a novelly idea really. And before WW2 a lot of substances that are illegal today, could be bought and consumed by pretty much anyone. Remember heroin? That one used to be in choloates. Methamphetamin? It was known and sold as Pervetin in Germany, very popular among Pilots and Soldiers in the German army during WW2. They gave those pills the nick-name Panzerchocolate or Herman-Goering-Pills.

The question isn't one about opression. It's one about choice. If the facts are so strong, that no one with a sane mind can deny them, than you will see banns. That simple. Even on something that is as common like meat. You can bet your life on that one. Why? Because we can't just recreate the rainforest just like that. Something that took thousands of years to grow. Neither can we replace the oceans. At some point, you have to give nature a chance to regenerate. Even politicans, rich people and anyone else, needs a relatively clean earth to exist. And when shit hits the fan, and it suddenly is about their ass as well, you WILL see changes. Just like during the cold war, with nuclear weapons. Even if nuclear weapons didn't eliminated the concept of war as whole, they made it less likey to see it happen between super powers. If it's your own ass that is on the stake, you might think twice about starting a war with those weapons. And if the people in charge start to lose their children suddenly, due to bacteria now resistant even to ‘last resort’ antibiotics, you might see how fast certain laws can be pushed trough a congress.


How much of all the problems havea direct affect on you though? I mean like seriously. I could be wrong, so sorry if it's not accurate. But you don't sound like someone who's currently suffering from a famine. Or living in a heavily polluted area where 40-50% of the children are born with disabilities due to lead and other heavy metals polluting the ground water.

Maybe we can talk again about, I dun care! Trololo! We deserve all of this, after you had to live in those places for a couple of years. I mean why not? I am sure Chernobyle has some of the cheapest real estate prices right now.
Click to expand...


And going back to the times when a lot of substances which are prohibited today were legally available to the public, what do we see? More or less drug addicts compared to today? The establishment chose to combat substances instead of the degeneracy which caused their abuse because it was a stepping stone to increasing government power.

Who gets to judge sanity in others?

Some of you people are way too eager to hand over your freedoms, and it makes me worried.

As for your banana example, they've been saying the same thing about cocoa for a long time, and I don't see shortages in chocolate.
 
Yes, reports and warnings of shortages and issues become more and more frequent. Which honestly, makes me worried.
The fun fact is, I hope that YOU(!) are right. And we are not running out of, cocoa, bananas, fish or what ever.
But I am afraid, that I am right. It doesn't take a genius or a degree in rocket science to see that our current behaviour, isn't really great.
I mean, pfff! Yeah! Runing out of a resources on a planet with finite resuorces? Haha! What a crazy thought! Right? Demanding sustainability? Looking for ways to preserve? Ridiculous!
Like I said, ignorance is bliss I guess ... but there is one good news. It most probably won't have serious effects on you and me. The chances are good that we can continue with it for at least the next 30 years, probably 50. In 50 years I will be 70.
Sucks for the generation that comes after us though.

Gonzalez said:
And going back to the times when a lot of substances which are prohibited today were legally available to the public, what do we see? More or less drug addicts compared to today? The establishment chose to combat substances instead of the degeneracy which caused their abuse because it was a stepping stone to increasing government power.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you mention this, because shaming drug addicts as criminals is probably almost as bad like fat-shaming in the US.



Treating addicts and banning a potentially very harmfull substance are two very different things, don't you think? Just because there is a serious problem with drug addicts does not mean that prosecuting large-scale drug trafficking becomes suddenly completely irrelevant.
Quote: (...) "There is a widely-held belief in America that Holland has a permissive attitude towards drugs; it does not. Rather, the country has adopted a more practical approach. Large-scale drug trafficking is still vigorously prosecuted. Drug use, however, is considered to be a public-health issue, not a criminal one. Addicts who are caught stealing or breaking other laws are prosecuted, but they are not arrested for possession."

How comes that some places for some reason, deal much better with drug addicts than others? Is it less of a problem for them? Or maybe, because they changed their handling of drug addicts, seeing it more as a symptom and/or illness rather than a crime. The moment you treat them like patients with a problem and not like criminals, the recidivism rate among drug users drops. And the number of drug addicts as well. If the only answer to drug offenders, is to throw them in a prison and shaming them, which can be described as physically and mentally very stressfull, with even easier access to drugs. Is it then really such a big surprise that people continue with their habbit?

This Country Cut Drug Addiction Rates in Half by Rejecting Criminalization
Fifteen years ago, the Portuguese had one of the worst drug problems in Europe.

It can have actually the oposite effect, if you stigmatize and shame people/offenders for something, which has for the most part external reasons.
There is a general tendency in the US, to follow a rather draconic punishment, rather then trying to actually prevent and/or help the people. Shaming criminals for their crime, is extremly common. However, while I do believe in a strong penal system, it is questionable if stronger and more harsh penalities, including jail time, actually lead to less crime in general.
Particularly crimes which have external reasons as cause. Like poverty, or a life crysis. Drug addiction for example, are rather symptoms of a problem rather then their cause, and part of a more complex issue.

Sadly I can't find accurate numbers about recidivism rate. Some go between 30% and even up to 70%. Depending on age, gender, nationality and background. From what I can read in some sources, 50% of the released prisoners in Germany are likely to face jail time again during their lifetime. For the US, some sources claim it's up to 70%. Ex-convictions in the US seem to face very harsh situations in general, after leaving jail, making it extremly difficult to get a normal life.


I do believe that our modern jurisdiction has some flaws. And we kinda like to close our eyes about the issue. In favour for harsher penalities and more draconic laws, which have more to do with the feeling of revenge and emotions, rather than solving the issue.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone thinks farming techniques are inefficient due unsustainable agriculture practicing that leads to soil degradation and using synthetic fertilizer that makes it worse. The thing is though, i do have a problem when someone tells me factory farming or the meat industry is the biggest distributor of green house emissions when Carbon remains as the most released and stuck within the atmosphere annually due to releases by cars and factories. Nevermind the fact that Carbon causes stronger cases of participation which lowers the PH levels and acidifies the oceans killing wild life. Then you have acid rain that fucks up farms and i released by smoke stacks that give of a primary pollutant called sulfuric dexoide. Smog from cars, and point source pollution that dumps directly into our rivers and streams.

Then you have illegal amazon forest deforestation which can be fixed by reinforestation and using a special type of bacteria for fixing soil. It's really complicated but i hate shitty vegan documentaries like cowspiracy and earthling as much as i hate loose changes, soaked and bleach and many other that aren't objective and try to make a persuasive essay.

Courtney love didn't kill Kurt Cobain, 9/11 was done by Islamic Terrorist, Carbon emissions and other source of methane are more abundantly released than fucking cow farts, and of course abuse of animal livestock i think is more blown out than it's shown. As appeal to emotion fallacies that those type of documentaries do is what is very problematic. I support green, eco friendly farming and and transportation and support renewable energy. I also eat locally and shop at my local butcher where the meat is fresh and tender.

Vegans can fuck off and die for all i care. Though, i don't mind vegetarians` as much.
 
No one's saying that you have to stop completely with meat. For fucks sake, I love meat to much to ever quit it completely, unless I have to.
But, I try to limit it to 2 times per week. Not only do I personally feel better, but I actually value meat a lot more.
Instead of just eating every chunk of meat I come across, I know look at the colour, if it tastes well, how to best prepare it. Changing the type, lamp, beef, pork, chicken, duck. You name it. And I am learning a lot about cooking, the what correct herbs to use and all that stuff.
And it is really worth it!
I mean, it is really not to much to ask from people to lower meant consumption. At least by 1/3.

It's simply an indisputable fact. We would need two aditional PLANETS(!), if everyone one on this world, would suddenly start to eat and buy like the average German or US american.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Maybe we can talk again about, I dun care! Trololo! We deserve all of this, after you had to live in those places for a couple of years. I mean why not? I am sure Chernobyle has some of the cheapest real estate prices right now.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'd love to live in chernobyl and eat their radioactive potatoes :D

Second, it's not that I don't care, but complaining about stuff and not doing anything about it is whining, I still wonder when people in the US is going to take up arms and kill all the banksters instead of living like sheep and complaining, because otherwise they deserve what they've got. The same with people living in countries with extreme poverty. I really commend the ones that, even risking their lives, emigrate to rich countries, it's only fair that if the center is going to take all the riches from the phriphery then the people living there move to where the resources are, those are people that are actually doing something. And if the center complains about immigrants then perhaps they should had thougth it twice before taking from them/bringing war to them. This is exactly what is happening today. See? Everything takes care of itself. Fuck shit up all the way across the wold and consequences are going to catch up with you sooner or later. It's time the poor of the world unite and invade the rich :D I mean, they totally outnumber them! Why aren't they taking what's theirs rigth now?
 
Crni Vuk said:
No one's saying that you have to stop completely with meat. For fucks sake, I love meat to much to ever quit it completely, unless I have to.
But, I try to limit it to 2 times per week. Not only do I personally feel better, but I actually value meat a lot more.
Instead of just eating every chunk of meat I come across, I know look at the colour, if it tastes well, how to best prepare it. Changing the type, lamp, beef, pork, chicken, duck. You name it. And I am learning a lot about cooking, the what correct herbs to use and all that stuff.
And it is really worth it!
I mean, it is really not to much to ask from people to lower meant consumption. At least by 1/3.

It's simply an indisputable fact. We would need two aditional PLANETS(!), if everyone one on this world, would suddenly start to eat and buy like the average German or US american.
Click to expand...


None insinuated that you did, More or so meat being the problem is what i have an issue with. Instead of fossil fuel dependent transportation and Carbon producing factories.

I eat meat for dinner almost every day for my high protien life style, i also have beans and other source of nutrtion as well and most of the meat i get is local and not giant factory farming.

Again i take problem to people boiling down complex issues into something "simple"
 
Gonzalez said:
First of all, I'd love to live in chernobyl and eat their radioactive potatoes :D

Second, it's not that I don't care, but complaining about stuff and not doing anything about it is whining, I still wonder when people in the US is going to take up arms and kill all the banksters instead of living like sheep and complaining, because otherwise they deserve what they've got. The same with people living in countries with extreme poverty. I really commend the ones that, even risking their lives, emigrate to rich countries, it's only fair that if the center is going to take all the riches from the phriphery then the people living there move to where the resources are, those are people that are actually doing something. And if the center complains about immigrants then perhaps they should had thougth it twice before taking from them/bringing war to them. This is exactly what is happening today. See? Everything takes care of itself. Fuck shit up all the way across the wold and consequences are going to catch up with you sooner or later. It's time the poor of the world unite and invade the rich :D I mean, they totally outnumber them! Why aren't they taking what's theirs rigth now?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the people should totally go and slaughter all the rich people. It worked out really well for Russia in 1917. I mean, just look at how poor people in Finland (the only part of the Russian empire not to have fallen under the commies) are, and look at how great socialism has made life in the USSR and Warsaw pact countries.

Resources? In Europe? If they were intent on going to resource-rich territories, they should go anywhere BUT Europe.

Also, taking what's theirs?

Here's an example. On one side, you have comrade Ivan. Comrade Ivan works on an assembly line, his job is to whack the product brought to him with his mighty soviet hammer. Comrade Ivan's salary is one thousand dollars a month.
On the other side, you have his menacing capitalist opressor, Scrooge McDuck. Capitalist pig-dog-duck Scrooge is left with a million dollars after having paid his workers. This vile exploiter provides glorious Comrade Ivan with a place to whack his hammer, purchases all the machinery which allows glorious Comrade Ivan to do nothing but whack his hammer, finds markets to sell the product of glorious Comrade Ivan's whacking, and expands his business, employing more glorious Comrades.
Or as socialists would put it - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, HE JUST SITS THERE.

I honestly can't see how Scrooge's resources can rightfully belong to Comrade Ivan.
 
TransgenderVaultDeweller said:
None insinuated that you did, More or so meat being the problem is what i have an issue with. Instead of fossil fuel dependent transportation and Carbon producing factories.

I eat meat for dinner almost every day for my high protien life style, i also have beans and other source of nutrtion as well and most of the meat i get is local and not giant factory farming.

Again i take problem to people boiling down complex issues into something "simple"
Click to expand...
You're right, it's not that simple. But we are talking here about a problem on a global scale.
If more people would support local farmers, things would be much better. I mean that's how it worked more or less in the past. When people ate meat maybe one or twice per week.
Thing is, we are talking about 100 millions of people here. I have read somewhere that if China and India increase their meat consumption to US levels? We would have to double the global meat production.
We are talking about billions of cattle, pigs and chickens here. And they all have to be somehow feed too.
Meat, while having a lot of advantages, takes a lot of energy in production, compared to products made of wheat or soy. Funny fact,
According to www.soyatech.com:

“About 85 percent of the world’s soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed. Some two percent of the soybean meal is further processed into soy flours and proteins for food use… Approximately six percent of soybeans are used directly as human food, mostly in Asia.”

I have no clue how accuate their number sare. But it's not a secret that a lot of crops that could be used in a better way, end up in meat production, to supply our endless chains of Burger Kings, Mc Donalds and Subways.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
You're right, it's not that simple. But we are talking here about a problem on a global scale.
If more people would support local farmers, things would be much better. I mean that's how it worked more or less in the past. When people ate meat maybe one or twice per week.
Click to expand...
I don't see how "supporting" less efficient "local" farms would lead to "things" being "much better" (talk about weasel words) or what influence that would have on the amount of meat people consume.
"That's how it worked in the past" is nothing but an appeal to tradition, a rejection of modern technology for no reason other than "it's new and therefore probably evil".
 
Mhmm. Yeah Bux. Like I really propose to, let us get back to 11th century farming! And abandon ALL kinds of technology.
I blame it on my shitty writing.

But this here, simply can't be good. No way you spin it.

And eating less than 2-3 times meat per day ... can't be really that bad.


*Edit
Of course local farms alone can't provide us with all the meat. Not as long we insist on keeping the shelves in super markets, fast food chains and our fridges at home full with 2-3 kinds of different meat in 100 of different variations. Since your're a German anyway, a bit of humor.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Mhmm. Yeah Bux. Like I really propose to, let us get back to 11th century farming! And abandon ALL kinds of technology.
I blame it on my shitty writing.
Click to expand...
You literally wrote
If more people would support local farmers, things would be much better. I mean that's how it worked more or less in the past. When people ate meat maybe one or twice per week.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what I adressed. There's not much room for interpretation here other than "Local farming makes 'things' 'much better' because that's how it worked in the past also people ate less meat back then" which is part non-sequitur and part completely unsubstantiated claim.

Crni Vuk said:
But this here, simply can't be good. No way you spin it.

And eating less than 2-3 times meat per day ... can't be bad.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. But the solution isn't local farms.
 
If you say so. I thought that it goes without a saying that we can't do all of this without a few changes. So yeah. I will stay with this "quote".
Supporting more local farmers and food production would lead to a better situation. In my opinion at least.
 
Yes. Pretty much.

It is what I have grown up with and know from my relatives in Serbia. And the small more rural town In Germany, where I have spend most of my teenage years.
Ecological Agriculture, Local farming, buying more seasonal products and so on. All of that was relatively common. No clue. Why do you think a stronger local farming community with more diversity - if possible, is a bad thing?

I mean, is there an alternative really. I would not mind to hear about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top