Freeganism.

[Despanan]

You still haven't answered any of my questions Jillian. Now granted you're dealing with the RebuttalMonster over there, but I'd still really like to hear precisely how Freeganism is having any actual impact on the "corporations" you talk about, precisely who the hell these "corporations" are, and how the Hell Freeganism is supposed to actually feed starving people like you and JCC have talked about.

[KontanKarite]

Funny thing about this, I agree with both sides. Dumpster diving is perfectly fine, but you have to be aware of the risks involved. I've done it a little bit and I've consumed the fruits of it as well.

The crux or the main problem with boycotting, especially for reasons such as death squads and poor labor environments in other countries is that those companies will take more action to get the results that they want. So, say 10,000 leftists boycott Coke. That's all good and fine, BUT, I digress, that also means that since you stopped buying coke, the labor is going to be cut back in that country causing whoever to starve more or be more violently coerced into doing a better job to meet demands.

It takes more than just willfully boycotting corporations to get them to behave ethically. Sure, you can do that in a developing country because Coca-Cola isn't going to gun you down because sales aren't being met and you probably wont starve because you would be able to collect unemployment.

So in boycotting, you are essentially hurting those you wish to save. Maybe not completely, but indeed marginally.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

First, you say that one must have physically observed something in order to talk about it. That is patently false.

If you can argue from an entirely hypothetical stance, then don't have a double standard and say that JCC's argument through a hypothetical outcome is invalid.

Second, you assert that simply because you know four people that practice Freeganism your remarks are lent some kind of validity.

They have more validity than your entirely hypothetical scenario, don't they?
I know the point, reasons, approaches, and methods of freeganism, and then I tell you of empiric examples. Why do you not think that gives me a validity to tell you why your hypothetical scenario is absurd?

Couple that with the fact that Freeganism is either, at best, treating the symptoms of a social disease rather than treating the root cause

You know what is more treating of the symptoms rather than treating the root cause? Charity.
Explain to me how charity is going to treat the root cause. All I see is alms being given from up above to the ones down below.
Comparing that to grassroots and community action such as in churches, in which people don't let other fellow people starve, to the idea of charity in which the rich give money to a chapter because they can afford it. Which one treats the root of the problem and which one is lip service?
The verticality of charity is exactly what you complained about hipsters but in an even bigger scale, can't you see it? Hipsters, you say, remove themselves from consumerism because they can afford it. Those that give money to charity only give it because they can afford it.

Originally Posted by Despanan

how Freeganism is having any actual impact on the "corporations" you talk about

You know what's bullshit, Despanan? No one has mentioned corporations but you.
Freeganism affects corporations only as much as boycotting. The point of freeganism is salvaging the refuse of this waste society and trying to put a use to it. The fact that you're so fixated on something you said tells me that either you're not even paying attention or that you have nothing to argue.

how the Hell Freeganism is supposed to actually feed starving people like you and JCC have talked about.

I believe I've mentioned Food Not Bombs thrice and food routes twice.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

If you can argue from an entirely hypothetical stance, then don't have a double standard and say that JCC's argument through a hypothetical outcome is invalid.

JCC didn't make an argument. By his own admission, he asked what kind of system would let unnecessary starvation take place.

Also, you misuse the word "hypothetical". A hypothetical situation involves a hypothesis, an educated guess. There's nothing educated about JCC crying out "WHHYYYYY?" to the sky.

They have more validity than your entirely hypothetical scenario, don't they?
I know the point, reasons, approaches, and methods of freeganism, and then I tell you of empiric examples. Why do you not think that gives me a validity to tell you why your hypothetical scenario is absurd?

You know the point, reasons, approaches, and methods of four people. That's all secondhand, too. Anything else you know about Freeganism, you were told and never witnessed or experienced.

You're talking about the experiences of four people that have been related to you secondhand, and then cob-jobbing that to whatever you've heard. I wouldn't call that extensive experience, yet, here you are, expounding about something you've never even done yourself.

You know what is more treating of the symptoms rather than treating the root cause? Charity.
Explain to me how charity is going to treat the root cause. All I see is alms being given from up above to the ones down below.

Did I say that charity was going to fight the root cause of a social disease? No. I didn't.

You took HALF of one of my quotes, ripping it from its context. The second half dealt with this very issue.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Now granted you're dealing with the RebuttalMonster over there

So sorry, would you prefer me to have responded with a slew of titshots?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You know the point, reasons, approaches, and methods of four people.

No, you idiot. Freeganism is set. There's even a freegan manifesto. Did you know that?
So I'm in a position to talk about freeganism through experience in both theory and practice.
Anything you've heard about freeganism, however, just came from your own conjectures of incomplete information.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

No, you idiot. Freeganism is set. There's even a freegan manifesto. Did you know that?
So I'm in a position to talk about freeganism through experience in both theory and practice.
Anything you've heard about freeganism, however, just came from your own conjectures of incomplete information.

Is there a link to this manifesto?

Also, what experience do you have? Do you go dumpster-diving? What, exactly, have you done that gave you experience of the Freegan cause?

Even if you have, nothing you've said makes me think that Freeganism amounts to anything more than a few charitable acts against a background of self-deluding idealism. No change will come of it, mainly because no one but fuzzy-headed idealists with pre-existing monetary support will engage in pointless shit like subsisting on refuse. Even then, I'd like to know how long they keep up their behavior before going home to shower and microwave some dinner.

I've already pointed out a number of more productive ways to engage in charitable activity. Why are you defending Freeganism when it simply takes time and resources away from charity that actually has a chance of accomplishing its goal?

[Godslayer Jillian]

If you already have a mindset focusing around activism, then the economic freedom that freeganism gives you is greater than the amount of time taken for it.

I'm trying to find an online version of the pamphlet "Why Freegan"
but while I find it this is also very informative http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/dis...3063/index.php
That's not the freegan manifesto, the manifesto is the pamphlet, but bear with me while I look for it.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

The crux or the main problem with boycotting, especially for reasons such as death squads and poor labor environments in other countries is that those companies will take more action to get the results that they want. So, say 10,000 leftists boycott Coke. That's all good and fine, BUT, I digress, that also means that since you stopped buying coke, the labor is going to be cut back in that country causing whoever to starve more or be more violently coerced into doing a better job to meet demands.

It takes more than just willfully boycotting corporations to get them to behave ethically. Sure, you can do that in a developing country because Coca-Cola isn't going to gun you down because sales aren't being met and you probably wont starve because you would be able to collect unemployment.

So in boycotting, you are essentially hurting those you wish to save. Maybe not completely, but indeed marginally.

Why can't they go back to subsistence farming on the local land like it was before Coke? Wouldn't that be healthier, cheaper and more importantly, free them from economic bondage? So yeah, boycott, then there is a painful transition, but a change for the better in the long term.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Why can't they go back to subsistence farming on the local land like it was before Coke? Wouldn't that be healthier, cheaper and more importantly, free them from economic bondage? So yeah, boycott, then there is a painful transition, but a change for the better in the long term.

Coke isn't invincible. But I would wager that it's better to demand a company like that to act more humanely and ethically.

Honestly, do you REALLY think that even a million people boycotting Coke is going to make a difference with Coke?

Do we honestly know how many people it would take to really put a scare into a company like Coke?

If a country wants economic independence from the states, then they need their revolution in their own borders or to rebuke these corporations outright. So how beneficial is Coke to them? If they, as a people turned their back on Coke, what would happen to them and what of the abuses of people if people enable it?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

"Alright, I'll shoot open the machine. But you have to answer to Coca-Cola."

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

"Alright, I'll shoot open the machine. But you have to answer to Coca-Cola."

HAHA! Peter Sellers and Dr. Strangelove for the win!

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You know what's bullshit, Despanan? No one has mentioned corporations but you. Freeganism affects corporations only as much as boycotting. The point of freeganism is salvaging the refuse of this waste society and trying to put a use to it. The fact that you're so fixated on something you said tells me that either you're not even paying attention or that you have nothing to argue.
I believe I've mentioned Food Not Bombs thrice and food routes twice.

Originally Posted by JCC

Freegan: I do not like the things that food companies do. I will not give them any more money to finance the things that I do not agree with.

not to mention that Carrot-top looking kid says it pretty blatantly in This video that JCC linked.

I don't think it's too much to ask that you actually know what it is that you're rebelling against, and how the method that you are rebelling will be effective. The fact that you respond in such a hostile manner to a few simple questions, instead of simply answering them tells me that either you don't know the answers, or you're just being ridiculously over-emotional.

Mentioning that "Food not Bombs" exists does nothing to prove that they effectively use dumpster food to feed starving people on any sort of serious scale. I want some fucking data here man, or at least some sort of plan they've got for finding the right food, making sure it's sanitary, and making sure it gets cooked and delivered to people who really are starving, and proof that it actually worked.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for an answer, but I doubt I'll get one, because freeganism doesn't really seem to be about being green, or less wasteful, or anti-corporatism. These things are window dressing. Freeganism seems to be about identifying yourself with a hip new trend so you can screw that hot chick with the dreds.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't think it's too much to ask that you actually know what it is that you're rebelling against, and how the method that you are rebelling will be effective.

Salvaging the refuse of a waste culture as the primary means of subsistence... I'm not sure what's stil not getting through. Are you trying to find a methodology of how to create a freegan system? You won't. Freeganism is a means, not an end. Is this what the whole diatribe is about?

The fact that you respond in such a hostile manner to a few simple questions, instead of simply answering them tells me that either you don't know the answers, or you're just being ridiculously over-emotional

When I read your "you haven't answered me! How does this undermine corporations?!" I felt surprised because I couldn't for my life remember talking about corporations at all. I went back and I only saw you talking about them. Yeah, I got overemotional because I only saw an increasingly pressuring demand to justify somethign I did not say.

Mentioning that "Food not Bombs" exists does nothing to prove that they effectively use dumpster food to feed starving people on any sort of serious scale.

You're considering quantity over ratio. Serious blunder. The amount of food one sole Food Not Bombs event can offer is staggering. If it's not on a serious scale it's because of the small amount of freegans that exist. Wouldn't you want to see more freegans just to prove whether it's effective or not, rather than damn them if they do, damn them if they don't?

I want some fucking data here man

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...997/jan97a.pdf

or at least some sort of plan they've got for finding the right food, making sure it's sanitary

How can I prove that to you other than physically give you a freegan meal? This demand is just absurd. What kind of evidence could I give you that is inviolable, not even for freeganism.


The only merit your critique of freeganism is is it's lifestylist, but PSPH and I already talked about that too much. Freeganism can only occur under this waste culture just as squatting can only occur if there's private property.
Does that justify waste? Does that justify evictions?
Freeganism and squatting are tactics, not, as I said above, goals. Please tell me you weren't trying to make it a goal.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

HAHA! Peter Sellers and Dr. Strangelove for the win!

It's a classic. I love it!

[Despanan]

Just got some time to read your post, sorry if it's been a few days, I've been busy.

The only merit your critique of freeganism is is it's lifestylist, but PSPH and I already talked about that too much. Freeganism can only occur under this waste culture just as squatting can only occur if there's private property.
Does that justify waste? Does that justify evictions?
Freeganism and squatting are tactics, not, as I said above, goals. Please tell me you weren't trying to make it a goal.

A link about food loss is a red herring here J, I'm not debating the fact that food is lost, I'm debating the merit of creating a "lifestyle" out of eating garbage. Nor am I arguing about evictions or "waste culture".

We're getting dangerously off-topic here, so I'm going to try to bring it back and simplify this:

You said that Freeganism is a lifestyle, It is not about getting the food you need because you cannot provide it for yourself by buying it, instead you choose not to buy it and eat only disgarded food. You claim that this lifestyle has merits. The merits that I have seen claimed (not necessarily by you) in this thread are thus:

1) a reduction of waste.

2) Removing one's self from participating in the "food companies economy" The understanding here is that boycotting these companies will eventually hurt them, or at least keep you from helping them. (ie: Damn these corporations!)

3) Saving Money.

4) Helping to feed those who would not otherwise be able to feed themselves.

I'll address these in reverse order:

4) Now, I have not seen that "Food not Bombs" runs on dumpster-dived food, because I have seen no data to back it up. Simply mentioning that food not bombs exists does not help me understand who "food not bombs" feeds, nor how it is related to freegaism, and thus to this debate. If you want to argue that a merit of freeganism is feeding people who cannot feed themselves you have to show me how freegans are feeding people who cannot feed themselves. That is what I'm saying.

(Honestly I can see widespread freeganism having the opposite effect ie: rich college grads making it harder for homeless people to salvage the food that they actually need.)

3) I've already pointed out that getting seriously ill just ONCE from eating the wrong thing in a dumpster will probably cost more than a lifetime of dumpster-dived meals will save. Therefore it is a senseless risk if you don't need to do it. It's certainly not a sound financial move from what I can see.

2) I don't see how eating refuse out of these dumpsters will hurt the "food companies" if it has any measurable effect at all it will hurt the local economy instead. On top of that even if you DO manage to hurt these companies, Kontan has explained why a boycott is not necessarily a way to get these companies to change their behavior. (not to mention that I have yet to be informed who these food companies are, and why we should be resisting them) Therefore Freeganism does not seem to have any sort of effect in fighting corporatism. Therefore this argument is also unsound.

1) I can maybe get behind you on a reduction of waste, except why is the waste in this situation bad? This food is organic* for the most part, it will decompose. We're taught that waste is bad from childhood, but why precisely is it bad here? The food cannot be sold because of health codes, health codes prevent the spread of disease. Widespread disease is a far less savory prospect for me, than wasted food.

You see why my main criticisms have been aimed at the social aspect of this "lifestyle"? There really are no merits to it that I can see beyond: "That chick with the dreds might sleep with me if I do this." and you and JCC have, thus far, failed to convince me that my critique of the supposed merits of this lifestyle is wrong, or that there are merits which I have not thought about.

Got it?

*organic in the classical sense, not the new food-marketing sense.

[Despanan]

Edit:

I just reread JCC's original post, and he mentions that Freegans give food to "Food not bombs" (I had forgotten about it, my bad). I'd still like to see if this claim is true and exactly how this food gets to the Homeless/disaster victims etc. and how much of it is actually dived for. If someone can actually show me some data to prove this claim (more than, "my friend gave a dumpster-dived sandwich to a homeless guy once")I will apologize and reconsider point #4.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Dude, don't think this is a cop-out, but freeganism and food not bombs are so intrinsically connected that I even refuse to bother to give you any links.
Google, wiki, or Ask about Food Not Bombs. You're asking me to prove Protestantism and Jesus Christ have to do with each other.

[KontanKarite]

Okay, Food Not Bombs, from what I've come to understand will usually talk to the management of the stores, telling them that they are relieved of their liabilities of their waste if Food Not Bombs can take it.

Now I also understand that Food Not Bombs isn't exactly a centralized organization like God's Food Pantry, so the tactics and actions of Food Not Bombs can vary from cell to cell. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Food Not Bombs isn't centralized. Therefore tactics vary.
However the movement still has set ideals, and one of them is to show that insufficiency in this society is artificially created, and therefore much if not most of the food collected is salvaged which would otherwise be wasted.

[Despanan]

Well excuse my ignorance on the matter. I really don't know anything about Food not Bombs, and I'd never heard of it before this website. Kontan explained sorta the idea behind it.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical about how effective it really is, but at least people are trying, and I will concede that if disaster victims and such actually are being fed by such a program than dumpster-diving has some redeeming qualities.

Nevertheless I'm always very suspicious of stuff like this. The reason I had such a strong reaction to those kids in the video is not because I disagree with some kids mooching free food. Moreso, I'm pissed off at my fellow leftists. I see so many people more concerned with living their "lifestyle" than actually producing any sort of meaningful change. More concerned with being a revolutionary than actually producing a revolution. I see so much passion that could be put to better use wasted on selfish exploits.

We're liberals, we're compassionate, we're young, we're angry, we're ready, so why do I see so many passionate young people smoking weed and being "lifestylists"? I see so much talk about taking down corporations and no action. Mainly they just say: "YAY! we got OBAMA IN! WE WON!" and go back to toking.

Living for the counterculture isn't making the world a better place, it's running away from the world. So often it's wasting passion and making us complacent, and frankly we're better than that.

Food not bombs sounds like a great idea, but frankly I want to see some organization, I want to see some centralization. I want to see something more than ideals, and inefficient effort, because right now, the conservatives are kicking our asses when it comes to actually helping the less-fortunate, and that's freaking sad.

People of our generation need to stop Fetishizing the poor and powerless and actually use the power we have to freaking do something about it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Mainly they just say: "YAY! we got OBAMA IN! WE WON!" and go back to toking.

Hey, I made a thread about this and you called me a blanket.
When do I win?!

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Hey, I made a thread about this and you called me a blanket.
When do I win?!

No, you made a thread where you made ridiculous claims and advocated what I would consider to be a ridiculously unrealistic radical agenda.

I agree with you that there's alot of work to still be done beyond electing obama, I disagree that freeing every black felon in prison is the kind of change we need. (<----That's a joke. you get my point.)

Also way to ignore the main point of my post, and latch onto one tiny aspect and declare "VICTORLY!".

[Godslayer Jillian]

Way to presume you know my reasons for latching onto one tiny aspect of your post.
I agree with most of what you said, so there wasn't a point in addressing it without being redundant. However it's you who are making a ridiculous claim by thinking that freeganism is absolutely and inescapably lifestylist.

[Despanan]

That's all I'm seeing at this point. I suppose if you're using that food to actually feed homeless people and disaster victims that's admirable, but it seems to me that these kids are using it to feed themselves.

Anyway, it's hard to tell if you're agreeing with me or just ignoring me if you don't type anything. This is the internet. I can't read your mind or your face, so you have to use text to communicate with me.