Amazing the amount of people who hate on him for this part of the story. He didn’t throw away food, he stuck to his morals and didn’t eat it. Hating on a poor person for having dignity? Keep up the good work.
It is because that part does not track at all. It is not healthier to go hungry then to eat that food. It is not "simple life" to ge vegan, it is cranking the complexity and expenses up.
Some part of the story are clear failures of the system. Some parts have nothing to do with the system (moms and dads decision). Some parts are system actually helping, maybe not enough but helping.
And then there were genuinely confusing parts as in someone with a seemingly normal job and three houses feeling like they dont have secure housing.
If someone makes a decision base on wrong information, what’s to blame: the informations he got or his judgement ability?
Two dimensions to interpret this:
- article author judgement on what’s healthy based solely on its personal nutritional knowledge at the moment.
- the judgement of his decision, solely on the details of this post.
IMHO the only fault here is to omit more information he was basing his decision. But reading between the lines: he repeat being "hungry" but never saying "staving". That’s a huge difference: being hungry isn’t a health hasard.
> "it is cranking the complexity and expenses up."
> "Some part of the story are clear failures of the system."
I think in some sense, this is a bit of a "failure of the system" if one considers that healthy foods (regardless of vegan or not) ought to be just as readily available as the ultra-cheap (ultra-processed) unhealthy stuff, and should maybe be at a similar enough price point as to not deny even the poorest in a properly civilized society at least the option to eat healthy if that's what they want, but somehow we've decided that maximizing for profit above all other things (including health) is the way to go for everything in society, including our food system. Fail.
frizlab|18 hours ago
The literal source text beg to differ. He could have at least given it to someone else in need.
watwut|1 day ago
Some part of the story are clear failures of the system. Some parts have nothing to do with the system (moms and dads decision). Some parts are system actually helping, maybe not enough but helping.
And then there were genuinely confusing parts as in someone with a seemingly normal job and three houses feeling like they dont have secure housing.
robocat|19 hours ago
That is a well known symptom of being hard up and then achieving some success.
Your fears don't magically disappear when your circumstances improve.
aziaziazi|23 hours ago
Two dimensions to interpret this:
- article author judgement on what’s healthy based solely on its personal nutritional knowledge at the moment.
- the judgement of his decision, solely on the details of this post.
IMHO the only fault here is to omit more information he was basing his decision. But reading between the lines: he repeat being "hungry" but never saying "staving". That’s a huge difference: being hungry isn’t a health hasard.
blooalien|16 hours ago
> "Some part of the story are clear failures of the system."
I think in some sense, this is a bit of a "failure of the system" if one considers that healthy foods (regardless of vegan or not) ought to be just as readily available as the ultra-cheap (ultra-processed) unhealthy stuff, and should maybe be at a similar enough price point as to not deny even the poorest in a properly civilized society at least the option to eat healthy if that's what they want, but somehow we've decided that maximizing for profit above all other things (including health) is the way to go for everything in society, including our food system. Fail.