What's your controversial food opinion?

[Anonymous]

I love my limited assortment grocery store (I go to Price Rite, but Aldi is also in this category). It's the same stuff as Giant but everything is cheaper and they even have Wyman frozen berries and Ezekial bread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peanut butter is disgusting! You can only like it if you grew up with it. It escapes me why anyone thinks it is awesome.

Consider trying a nice fresh natural peanut butter lightly spread inside a sharp cheddar quesadilla.

Ew WTF?? Now that is controversial.

Sharp cheddar and natural peanut butter together are AMAZING!!! One of my favorite sandwich combos. Best on fresh sourdough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going back through 40 pages to see if anyone said this already:

White chocolate is not chocolate. This is the hill I will die. If there's no cocoa solids, then it's not for me. White chocolate only has cocoa butter, lies, sugar, and sadness. It was a disgusting way to get rid of cocoa butter back in the dawn ages before people gave a crap about fancy skin care ingredients. Just say no.

Also dark chocolate is superior to milk chocolate and I'll fight anyone who says different.

I like you.

Let me know when this club meets, I will be there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I laugh inside when people are trying to pronounce Worcestershire sauce. But never show it.

We deliberately mispronounce it (long-running family joke), but I had to explain this to my kids recently when I realized they didn't actually know how to pronounce it properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

Can you share more about this line of thinking? — vegetarian without pets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

Can you share more about this line of thinking? — vegetarian without pets

I’m so confused as well.

[Anonymous]

everyone should have food

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

Can you share more about this line of thinking? — vegetarian without pets

I’m so confused as well.

NP here. I could be wrong, but I think it’s like...if you feel so strongly about animal welfare that you’re vegan and use absolutely no animal-based products, then why do you feel comfortable “owning” an animal that you keep in captivity for your own amusement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

Can you share more about this line of thinking? — vegetarian without pets

Hi - It's basically getting comfortable with some amount of cruelty in cases where it is necessary for life, and trying to minimize how much harm and cruelty you cause.

While you can choose for yourself not to eat animal products, and still be healthy and well, your cat and to some extent your dog have to eat meat in order to survive. They are obligate carnivores. So you aren't taking on voluntary cruelty by feeding them, the way you are if you eat meat yourself. You can try to reduce the amount of cruelty involved in feeding your pets by feeding them kibble made from byproducts - basically, most pet food, made of meat parts that would go to waste were they not being fed to pets. Or by buying a super luxury certified humane pet food.

You not having a cat wouldn't make that cat cease to exist, and the cat would be eating meat with or without you, essentially. You aren't contributing to more harm by feeding your cat. And you can take measures to try to reduce that harm as a thoughtful consumer.

The alternative is that you kill all the cats and dogs and all other meat eating animals and only allow the vegetarian animals to survive, and that's not a very good system either. Also even the vegetarian animals cause some harm - they step on bugs; they poop in water where fish live, etc. All life involves some harm, the best we can do is to thoughtfully minimize how we participate in that harm.

AMA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

Can you share more about this line of thinking? — vegetarian without pets

I’m so confused as well.

NP here. I could be wrong, but I think it’s like...if you feel so strongly about animal welfare that you’re vegan and use absolutely no animal-based products, then why do you feel comfortable “owning” an animal that you keep in captivity for your own amusement.

That's a whole other issue. Dogs and cats actually voluntarily domesticated - they chose for themselves to live with humans, rather than be wild.

I don't think it is inherently cruel to keep them as our companions, still to this day. We provide them shelter, food, medical care, safety, and in exchange they give up the right to run wild in the street. (It's a lot like marriage in that way - you trade freedom for safety. Of course the difference is that marriage is voluntary and we buy our pets, so they don't get a say - but their ancestors made this choice, and the current dogs and cats seem pretty satisfied overall with the bargain, too.)

I do think many of the ways we treat them in our homes is cruel and immoral. People who keep their dogs crated for hours and hours every day - that is cruel. People who don't make sure their dogs and cats have enough companionship and enrichment to keep them happy, that's cruel as well. There is a lot of cruelty in breeding - in the system of creating more cats and dogs for us to purchase. Etc.

But the keeping of cats and dogs in our home is not cruel per se, I don't think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

Can you share more about this line of thinking? — vegetarian without pets

Hi - It's basically getting comfortable with some amount of cruelty in cases where it is necessary for life, and trying to minimize how much harm and cruelty you cause.

While you can choose for yourself not to eat animal products, and still be healthy and well, your cat and to some extent your dog have to eat meat in order to survive. They are obligate carnivores. So you aren't taking on voluntary cruelty by feeding them, the way you are if you eat meat yourself. You can try to reduce the amount of cruelty involved in feeding your pets by feeding them kibble made from byproducts - basically, most pet food, made of meat parts that would go to waste were they not being fed to pets. Or by buying a super luxury certified humane pet food.

You not having a cat wouldn't make that cat cease to exist, and the cat would be eating meat with or without you, essentially. You aren't contributing to more harm by feeding your cat. And you can take measures to try to reduce that harm as a thoughtful consumer.

The alternative is that you kill all the cats and dogs and all other meat eating animals and only allow the vegetarian animals to survive, and that's not a very good system either. Also even the vegetarian animals cause some harm - they step on bugs; they poop in water where fish live, etc. All life involves some harm, the best we can do is to thoughtfully minimize how we participate in that harm.

AMA

Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining. This is about feeding your pets meat, or not. If I had a pet, of course I would feed it meat because that is what they eat. But as a vegetarian, I wouldn’t make it or anything. I’d buy it and feed them that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not totally food related, but... vegetarians/vegans who have cats and dogs are total hypocrites.

I've actually thought a lot about this - and wrote a novel that takes this on, too (published by a real publisher and everything) - and nuh huh. It's complicated sure but not hypocritical.

Can you share more about this line of thinking? — vegetarian without pets

Hi - It's basically getting comfortable with some amount of cruelty in cases where it is necessary for life, and trying to minimize how much harm and cruelty you cause.

While you can choose for yourself not to eat animal products, and still be healthy and well, your cat and to some extent your dog have to eat meat in order to survive. They are obligate carnivores. So you aren't taking on voluntary cruelty by feeding them, the way you are if you eat meat yourself. You can try to reduce the amount of cruelty involved in feeding your pets by feeding them kibble made from byproducts - basically, most pet food, made of meat parts that would go to waste were they not being fed to pets. Or by buying a super luxury certified humane pet food.

You not having a cat wouldn't make that cat cease to exist, and the cat would be eating meat with or without you, essentially. You aren't contributing to more harm by feeding your cat. And you can take measures to try to reduce that harm as a thoughtful consumer.

The alternative is that you kill all the cats and dogs and all other meat eating animals and only allow the vegetarian animals to survive, and that's not a very good system either. Also even the vegetarian animals cause some harm - they step on bugs; they poop in water where fish live, etc. All life involves some harm, the best we can do is to thoughtfully minimize how we participate in that harm.

AMA

Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining. This is about feeding your pets meat, or not. If I had a pet, of course I would feed it meat because that is what they eat. But as a vegetarian, I wouldn’t make it or anything. I’d buy it and feed them that way.

I am the PP - and that's my situation, too. I feed the pets meat, I don't cook the meat for them. Though when my dog has an upset tummy I do buy him chicken breasts (pasture raised chickens, usually) and boil them for him, to feed with pumpkin and rice.

[Anonymous]

I love cooking with Campbell's Cream of Mushroom soup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless you truly have a disease.. going gluten free does absolutely nothing to improve your health in any way.

Intolerances are real. If a person can have both a dairy allergy and CMPI THEN it stand to reason that a person can also have celiac OR gluten intolerance. Many autoimmune disorder patients are encouraged to remove dairy or gluten from their diet to see if it helps.

There are also an increasing number of studies showing that increased intestinal permeability is a factor with tolerance of food proteins, which can be inherited. As the permeability increases larger proteins can "go through" and are flagged by certain immune cells.