So Starbucks is training ground for fastfood ordering.
And why you want to change out on fries Kumano?? Burger and fries are 2 things that must not be separated!

She's so damn proud of herself you almost don't want to tell her what a doofus she's being...

/\/\ao said:

So Starbucks is training ground for fastfood ordering.
And why you want to change out on fries Kumano?? Burger and fries are 2 things that must not be separated!

Probably because calories. (Although if you're skipping the fried food, that would include the filet-o-fish, too, wouldn't it?)

NWSiaCB said:

Probably because calories. (Although if you're skipping the fried food, that would include the filet-o-fish, too, wouldn't it?)

If you're worried about calories you wouldn't eat at McD in the first place.

...and let's not mention that the salad prolly has more calories than a burger.

That's how guilty calorie consumption works. Same way fat people enjoy eating greasy foods accompanied with a diet coke.

NNescio said:

If you're worried about calories you wouldn't eat at McD in the first place.

...and let's not mention that the salad prolly has more calories than a burger.

Note that it's the dressing you choose. Plain ranch dressing is actually worse than the caeser. Vinegar-based dressings, though, are healthier.

Still, I personally just avoid eating the fries by ordering a junior cheeseburger or a second double stacker or whatever the value meal burger is for the place I'm in.

... And all that said, most fast food joints are expensive enough nowadays that eating at a healthier restaurant doesn't cost any more than eating at a burger joint, to start with...

NWSiaCB said:

Note that it's the dressing you choose. Plain ranch dressing is actually worse than the caeser. Vinegar-based dressings, though, are healthier.

Still, I personally just avoid eating the fries by ordering a junior cheeseburger or a second double stacker or whatever the value meal burger is for the place I'm in.

... And all that said, most fast food joints are expensive enough nowadays that eating at a healthier restaurant doesn't cost any more than eating at a burger joint, to start with...

Eh the prices are up, but it's not like other places prices are down. Sure you might easily spend 6 to 7 bucks nowadays, but I find it hard to get out of 'more healthy' places at under 10 per person (at best). That might be "only a few bucks", but what people preaching health food never seem to grasp is that for people with lower incomes 'a few bucks' isn't a few bucks in my case 'a few bucks' is 'an hour of hard psychical labor at my job'.

Tk3997 said:

Eh the prices are up, but it's not like other places prices are down. Sure you might easily spend 6 to 7 bucks nowadays, but I find it hard to get out of 'more healthy' places at under 10 per person (at best). That might be "only a few bucks", but what people preaching health food never seem to grasp is that for people with lower incomes 'a few bucks' isn't a few bucks in my case 'a few bucks' is 'an hour of hard psychical labor at my job'.

Real health food is stuff you cook at home anyways. If you go out to eat, you mind as well eat stuff that actually tastes good.

On a related note, original Buddhism preached to never kill any animals and so you would have to be vegetarian. Of course, that meant that anyone who was not well to do would have to go starve and become malnourished (since it rarely is natural to have a wide enough variety of vegetables growing in one area to actually sustain life). As a result the sect of Buddhism that I belonged to said "fuck this load of donkey shit" and let it's members eat meat.

I never understood the whole vegetarian cult concept. Seems like an elitist concept to seem superior over us lesser meat eaters, but until we evolve with multiple stomachs or bacteria to digest cellulose, it is pretty obvious that meat is the only pragmatic way to eat healthy.

79248cm/s said:

I never understood the whole vegetarian cult concept. Seems like an elitist concept to seem superior over us lesser meat eaters, but until we evolve with multiple stomachs or bacteria to digest cellulose, it is pretty obvious that meat is the only pragmatic way to eat healthy.

Me neither, despite my country having one of the largest vegetarian holiday. Turns out said holiday started out as an acting troupe's offering to Guanyin Bodhisattva, their matron goddess (who is often associated with vegetarianism due to one of the legends having her state along the lines of "A life should definitely belong to one who tries to save it, not one who tries to take it"). That same holiday is also the one where members of the acting troupe pierce their cheeks and mouth with various instruments, from long metal rods to performance swords.

Humans are omnivores, first and foremost. It's this adaptation that has let humanity conquer the lands wherever they go - as long as there's something we can digest, we at least won't starve to death.

79248cm/s said:

On a related note, original Buddhism preached to never kill any animals and so you would have to be vegetarian. Of course, that meant that anyone who was not well to do would have to go starve and become malnourished (since it rarely is natural to have a wide enough variety of vegetables growing in one area to actually sustain life). As a result the sect of Buddhism that I belonged to said "fuck this load of donkey shit" and let it's members eat meat.

Didn't the original Buddhism teaching is more like don't indulge by eating more than what you need ? After all they understand well than there are also creatures (carnivores) that need to kill other creature to survive.
The monks are only allowed to have leftovers (no specific that it has to be vegetable) and they're not allowed to accept alms that are prepared exclusively for them (because that means the creatures are killed for them).

Which made me question the tradition of freeing animals like birds in temples. The birds are sold in front of the temples, specifically for this ritual, which made it pointless because in the first place, the birds are in that position thanks to the ritual itself.
They should be freeing animals from animal markets instead. Those who are captured not to be released but to be sold or eaten.

if its salad, i prefer a shreded carrot and turnip that alreadymarinated in vinegar then give a bit sweet mayonnaise as dressing. it go well together with the fries if you mix some tomato/chilli sauce

but if its meat, i like fish better than chicken or beef. that is as long as the fish isnt stinks because lack of preparation.

Seika said:

Didn't the original Buddhism teaching is more like don't indulge by eating more than what you need ? After all they understand well than there are also creatures (carnivores) that need to kill other creature to survive.
The monks are only allowed to have leftovers (no specific that it has to be vegetable) and they're not allowed to accept alms that are prepared exclusively for them (because that means the creatures are killed for them).

Which made me question the tradition of freeing animals like birds in temples. The birds are sold in front of the temples, specifically for this ritual, which made it pointless because in the first place, the birds are in that position thanks to the ritual itself.
They should be freeing animals from animal markets instead. Those who are captured not to be released but to be sold or eaten.

The main point of the divergence was pretty much that the whole point of irrationally preserving all life and forgoing their use to promote other lives was not pragmatic. After all, death is the inherent shadow of life, and to pretend to deny it's existence is essentially hindering the evolution of spirits. To say death is a terrible thing is really a sort of sacrilege to the concept of Buddhism where death and life are equally important. Life is intended to improve and nurture our souls, death is the evaluation and transition to the next stage. A soul cannot attain enlightenment with only one spectrum or the other.

EDIT: Oh, so yeah, we don't do the whole bird releasing and stuff. We just sell a mean sukiyaki dinner to make up the little revenue we need to survive financially.

On a related note, original Buddhism preached to never kill any animals and so you would have to be vegetarian. Of course, that meant that anyone who was not well to do would have to go starve and become malnourished (since it rarely is natural to have a wide enough variety of vegetables growing in one area to actually sustain life). As a result the sect of Buddhism that I belonged to said "fuck this load of donkey shit" and let it's members eat meat.

As Seika stated, the primary teaching of Buddhism is essentially "Everything in Moderation" which extends to all aspects of living. Moderation in eating. Moderation in living. Moderation in action. Moderation in thought. It doesn't forbid its members from eating anything specific - just not to eat more than necessary (thus conforming to the "Nothing in excess" idea).

Seika said:

Which made me question the tradition of freeing animals like birds in temples. The birds are sold in front of the temples, specifically for this ritual, which made it pointless because in the first place, the birds are in that position thanks to the ritual itself.
They should be freeing animals from animal markets instead. Those who are captured not to be released but to be sold or eaten.

Well, Thai Buddhism is pretty much thinly-veiled Animism+Brahmanism... Well, this isn't the place to start up a crusade, so I'll just leave that as a personal opinion.

[deleted]

Don't take life.
Feeding the body is starving the soul.
The more your body suffer the more your soul is joyed.
*almost died in starvation*
Screw it. Lets eat, just don't overdo it.

Back to the picture, nobody think it's just to follow mom's order to eat your greens ?

Seika said:

Don't take life.
Feeding the body is starving the soul.
The more your body suffer the more your soul is joyed.
*almost died in starvation*
Screw it. Lets eat, just don't overdo it.

Back to the picture, nobody think it's just to follow mom's order to eat your greens ?

Very accurate representation. Both of them. Haha.

Tk3997 said:

Eh the prices are up, but it's not like other places prices are down. Sure you might easily spend 6 to 7 bucks nowadays, but I find it hard to get out of 'more healthy' places at under 10 per person (at best). That might be "only a few bucks", but what people preaching health food never seem to grasp is that for people with lower incomes 'a few bucks' isn't a few bucks in my case 'a few bucks' is 'an hour of hard psychical labor at my job'.

No, I mean that I can go to McDonalds for about $7, or I can go to something like Noodles and Co. for $7. I also know a few decent Chinese places around here I can get the lunch special with for less than $7, although that's takeout without getting a drink. (You'd have to shop around to actually find "healthier" in terms of grease, but at least they have actual vegetables... It's a relative term, anyway, and perhaps I should just say "tastes better".) I could also get a Papa Murphy's pizza that will last me 2-3 meals for $13, (and $3 off for filling out the survey, which I basically always do...) which I can order with less greasy ingredients. (Hey, I like chicken, spinach, onion, and green pepper pizzas with garlic sauce...)

AdventZero said:

Humans are omnivores, first and foremost. It's this adaptation that has let humanity conquer the lands wherever they go - as long as there's something we can digest, we at least won't starve to death.

Actually, it's a deficiency. Humanity should have had the capacity to generate vitamin B12, itself, but lost it due to a mutation that spread throughout humanity. That is pretty much the reason people have to eat meat, or at least eggs and milk, or take historically unavailable vitamin supplements to survive. Humanity can hunt, yes, but the OVERWHELMING majority of food humanity consumes is raised through farming, and growing plants just to feed it to another animal that you then kill and eat is simply less efficient. For that matter, if we simply retained our capacity to eat leaves, which human ancestors DID posses, we'd be far more suited to conquering the lands wherever we went, since that would require no sacrifice in omnivorousness. If you are talking about purely practical reasons, there's little reason nearly all of humanity isn't strictly vegetarian at this point, as it's both healthier and cheaper.

Humans eat meat currently for mostly social reasons. Meat is the "centerpiece" of meals, and vegetables are the "side dishes", because that's how we were raised to see those things. I remember reading that in ancient, pre-civilization societies, the hunters would generally bring in far less actual food than the gatherers, but because failed hunts had little social consequence, while successful hunts had tremendous benefit, most who could wanted to be hunters for the prestige. There's also a bit of psychological hard-wiring into desiring meat in general, just like how humanity loves grease and salt just because it was, before modern times, rare to get lots of it.

rom_collector said:

That's how guilty calorie consumption works. Same way fat people enjoy eating greasy foods accompanied with a diet coke.

On a point of order, no one enjoys eating anything with a Diet Coke.