/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Thank you buddy. I am safe now

>>11052651
this is pretty funny haha

>>11052651
>reminder that home grown
That man in the suit didn't grow anything on that table.

>>11052835
Including the children.

>>11052835
Source?

>>11052651
>Post industrialization
Lole

>#maga

Fuck off, retard. You clearly know nothing about the food industry.

It's unfeasible to maintain current population size and quality of life while also wasting 50% of everyone's time on subsistence farming.

>>11053085
(((Joel Furhman)))

You came to the wrong website motherfucker.

>>11053085
100 calories of broccoli is about 2 lbs. Who eats 2 pounds of broccoli in one sitting? Or even spread out over the course of a day? Are you a cow?

>>11053085
The problem is the same as existed with electric cars in the 70's where the petroleum industry either blocked them or bought them out and shelved it. Same thing happens now with sustainable agriculture growing food w/o chemicals. You want woke, then get woke and stop listening to industry shill propaganda. There, I said it, ok?

>>11053165
wow... you're so fucking retarded dude.

1 pound is 155 calories.
12.6 ounces is 100 calories

>>11052651
>all natural
Go drink some all-natural hemlock.

Give me liberty or give me death!

>>11053205
He overestimated but he's still right, that image is delibaretely twisting the facts to push a narrative. Not to mention that the broccoli in protein isn't as good as the protein in beef. Broccoli is still healthy and you should eat it, just not for the protein.

It's just like this image that gets around too, but what the image doesn't tell you is that the info is for dry and uncooked beans which are inedible.

>>11053540
Beans are incomplete proteins FYI

>>11053540
>Not to mention that the broccoli in protein isn't as good as the protein in beef.
>the broccoli in protein
am i dyslexic?

>>11052651
It's completely ridiculous to eat dinner in your suit and tie with your family. You get home after working 8+hours and commuting and you keep your monkey suit on? It takes about 3 minutes to change clothes into normal attire and you dont risk getting your jacket or tie dirty eating. I prefer everybody be comfortable while eating including clothing
>t. worker bee

>>11053559
No they aren’t you fucking retard
http://aas.bf.uni-lj.si/zootehnika/78-2001/PDF/78-2001-1-57-68.pdf

Why can’t you worthless fucking faggots ever bother researching something for more than 5 seconds? No one from old /fit/ even believes this retarded broscience

Learn to ratio you stupid down syndromed fuck

>>11053576
he's obviously going out to see his mistress after dinner, you fucking cuck.

>>11053588
>old /fit/
Old /fit/ died around the time zyzz did. Now it's misc+reddit.

>>11053576
>It's completely ridiculous to eat dinner in your suit and tie with your family.
Most people don't even wear suits, let alone ties, to work anymore. Much more common is jeans and a t-shirt unless you're an executive, in which case you might wear business casual. At least speaking as a software developer, nobody at the companies I've worked at have dressed up for work.

>>11053607
nigger not everyone is freelancing at some run down codemonkey shack. if you're in finance, law, insurance etc., you wear a suit.

>>11053588
I think more people know today that you can combine plant foods to get all the amino acids you need, but that link still says they're low in certain ones and even that lentils aren't as good as beans for quality of protein, even though lentils have more total protein.

>>11052651

This is why I only eat at Subway. Especially from their $5 menu. It's economically affordable so you can eat every day, and all ingredients are sourced from only the highest quality available. From their meatball marinara, so their spicy italian, and even vegetarian wraps for those even more health conscious. You should visit one of your local Subway restaurants and experience for yourself first hand the delicious and healthy delight a sub sandwich can bring to your day.

Subway. Eat Fresh.

>>11053607
I work for a Fortune 500 and sometimes you're even slightly exposed to the customer, so unless you're completely at an off site office complex, you wear a suit.

ALSO. Anyone who thinks that eating completely organic is feasible for the entire world is an entitled first worlder who doesn't know anything
about how food works.

>>11053616
>lists "legal" gangster jobs wearing suits as a badge of honor
Anon I....

>>11052651
reminder that natural doesn't mean anything. Its an arbitrary and meaningless concept

>>11053752
I tried pointing out the appeal to nature fallacy to some people before and the only response I got was "LMAO THIS GUY THINKS NATURAL STUFF IS BAD"

>>11053616
>freelancing
>run down
Nope and nope. My company has over one million customers and I'm on salary with the standard benefits.
Suit wearing just isn't done most of the time, at least not around these parts. I haven't even owned a suit in a very long time.

>>11053721
Working for a Fortune 500 means shit unless you’re actually shit there. I see bag carrying cucks say this as some badge of honor.

>>11052651
>is chock full of corporation shills
Says the whole foods shill
The "natural" food lobby is way the fuck bigger than Monsanto or whatever "evil" company you somehow think is paying people to post on an obscure slow board here

Remember, Whole Foods alone is bigger and more powerful than Monsanto, and now owned by Amazon one of the two biggest companies in the world.
So if you don't like corporate food trying to trick you, anything marketed as natural or organic should be the first thing you cut out

>>11053777
You Monsanto shills are so fucking transparent

Try harder, shitbrains

>>11053787
Not that guy but you look retarded for not disproving any of his points

>>11053792
You literally did this exact thing yesterday.

Rot in hell

>>11053787
Solid rebuttal. Do you think corporate doctors are trying to trick you into taking vaccines instead of "alternative medicine?
Or corporate scientists are trying to trick you when they say astrology is fake?

>>11053799
there are more than one other person here, and anyone with even a basic understanding of science is going to point out your naturalistic bullshit

>>11053803
>Solid rebuttal
Yeah I forgot that part where anyone legitimizes an argument that claims Monsanto is some little man working class company

You suck at your job, hear you go again going off on autistic tangents about anti-science. Ill be awaiting you reeing about luddites

>>11053807
No there isn’t. It’s you pathetically samefagging in the exact same fashion you do every single thread. Defending Monsanto for no reason and bringing up irrelevant strawmen

>>11053576
It's called coming home to dinner after work, anon. Women used to cook for the husband.

>>11053588
This is completely false and also:

>from slovenian study

lol

>>11053812
Monanto is a mid size company, but the idea that Monsanto represents evil corporations and big organic does not is just silly. Both sides are just a bunch of corporations trying to make money, at least one does so through science and innovation without only going for dishonest marketing bullshit

>>11053816
You are literally talking to at least two people right now, and I definitely didn't post about any of this yesterday

>>11053826
Yeah, please rot in hell you deliberately strawmanning shill

>>11053831
plot twist, this guy is actually a monsanto shill trying to make anti-monsanto people look retarded

>>11053777
>don't mention monsanto
>talk about sitting down with family to enjoy a meal

WHOLE FOODS SHILL!! ITS NOT MONSANTO!! EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDNT MENTION MONSANTO IM JUST SAYING ITS NOT MONSANTO

ITS REALLY NOT MONSANTO STOP THINKING ITS MONSANTO

I'm starting to think it's monsanto. Thanks for the heads up. Tell your supervisor you should be fired.

>>11053829
I literally am not. Im talking to some pathetic fucking shill who gets paid minimum wage to shill for his employer

>>11053837
Plot Twist: This is an organic shill made to look Monsanto shills look as retarded as possible

>>11053816
>Defending Monsanto for no reason
Its not about Monsanto specifically. I am going against dishonest companies, Monsanto just happens to be one of the many companies the topic of this thread is fighting against. Any time a company advertises as being organic, natural, GMO-free, or any harmless substance-free for that matter, it is immoral and should not be tolerated by educated people

>>11053840
I didn't say anything about a family meal, again not everyone beside you is the same person

>>11053845
To be honest the guy you're replying to is probably one of the worst shills I've ever seen. He's completely exposing his company he's working for without even a mention of it in the thread, and painting all monsanto supporters to look like absolute retards.

No wonder he makes minimum wage. Some people are just born to do poorly I guess. Or perhaps because they choose to, I try not to be biased.

>>11053847
NO ONE mentioned Monsanto until you did. And here you are continuously white knighting for them and talking about not shilling from the get go

You suck at your job and should rot in hell

>>11053831
How is any of that a strawman? Do you even know what that means or are you just saying it to sound cool?

>>11053845
Do you honestly believe Monsanto, or really any company at all pays people to post here and argue with pedants on a quite corner of a not that notable website? Are you fucking insane?

>>11053855
You don't even know what a greentext is you fucking faggot? LMAO. Get the fuck off this board. I hope your supervisor sees this and gets you fired you imbecilic fuck. Back to the call center

>>11053845
>>11053860
samefag

>>11053860
Lol at the idea of someone supporting basic science education makes one a "monsanto supporter"

>>11053816
>Defending Monsanto for no reason
Is there a particularly great reason for getting into internet arguments in favor of any position? Pretty sure mild autism / OCD is the motivator in all cases.
Also there definitely is more than one person FYI. I was making the majority of posts against the anti-Monsanto anons the other day and I haven't been arguing in this thread so far (and hopefully won't start either since I'm trying to keep reminding myself it just wastes time and makes me annoyed for nothing in return and that I'd be better off getting high and listening to Boards of Canada instead).
In general I think most anons on 4chan are too quick to assume shills or conspiracies. You'd be surprised how much writing random single young men with free time and a compulsion to correct other people will post to 4chan with no rational motivation involved.

>>11053860
He follows the same formula every thread

>make retarded strawman defending Monsanto regardless of anyone mentioned it or not
>no one bothers to give a serious reply to such inane shit
>samefags to say “youre not disproving him”
>calls everyone hippies, luddities, anti vaxxers, anti science etc. ad nauseum
>whiteknights any and all Monsanto practices

It really is silly. Ive seen this on this board for at least 6 years now

>>11053866
What are you even talking about? How else would you possibly want me to interpret your green text?

>>11053873
Try again.

I'm convinced you are now just trying to bait. On a blue board none the less. Let's just hope the mods disagree...

>>11053865
>>11053875
>MONSANTO DINDU NUFFIN IM JUST A SCIENTIFIC GUY

Christ almighty

>>11053875
>In general I think most anons on 4chan are too quick to assume shills or conspiracies
I think its just a handful of really dumb people. No fucking way more than that actually think companies pay people to be here

>>11053880
You mean this dude's been doing this for 6 fucking years and still doesn't know what a greentext is?

>>11053890
Where did I (second post you quoted) say anything about being "SCIENTIFIC?"
OCD isn't scientific dummy, it's mental illness.

>>11053874
“Basic science education”

>>11053875
>Boards of Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIYO-aKkPss

>>11053897
That or the old dude got fired and this guy is just a newfag following the company manual for shilling. Either way buddy needs to sharpen his shitposting if he wants to be any bit sly

>>11053897
>this dude's been doing this for 6 fucking years
Doubtful, what the other anon described is super-typical behavior for anyone in an internet argument and he's probably imagining what are really many different anons over time as one combined super-anon who's been involved in an elaborate six year 4chan specific marketing scheme for inexplicable reasons.

>>11053880
You people don't answer to any point, you just whine about monsanto and shills and spout ridicuously baseless ideologies and just ignore the substance of any argument.

Look at the last hour of posts, its people saying legitimate things about how the natural food lobby is terrible, and then its you just getting paranoid saying everyone is the same person and also being paid by Monsanto and inappropriately saying "strawman" over and over, a term you obviously do not understand

There is a reason people calling you out follow a similar pattern, its because that is the natural reaction to people saying dumb stuff on the internet. People are going to call you out and associate you with other very similar dumb stuff like anti-vaxxers. I'm quite sure there is a huge overlap between people who are anti-vax and people who think GMOs are bad, because it takes a very similar simple-minded anti-critical mindset to believe either stance

>>11053897
Do you genuinely not know how to use green text? What are you even talking about?

>>11053906
Thanks, I forgot about Boc Maxima.

>>11053915
You have absolutely no point to be made. You entered this thread strawmanning about how Monsanto dindu nuffin and making false equivalencies to such effect and expect serious discourse from it

Look at your past 10 minutes of posting in which youve written a full length novel getting pissy over your autistic unprovoked shilling. You’re utterly pathetic

>>11053925
How was he unprovoked when the thread started out with:
>Only natural foods are acceptable and you're a shill if you think otherwise
That's about as deliberately provocative as you can get outside of just asking directly that people argue with you.

I wonder if there will be an argument about GMOs tomorrow?

>>11053925
Stop saying strawman unless you are going to use it correctly.

The point is marketing your product as natural and implying that makes it good is inherently dishonest. You are trying to trick consumers into thinking that means "artificial" things are bad, an absurd and baseless stance. GMOs naturally come up as they are one specific example of this. Its a huge problem in food (and actually extending well beyond to household products in general) where a shitty ass company comes up and starts marketing their product as being free of some non-harmful thing (think of all the fat free shit in the 90s that loaded up on even higher amounts of sugars) or often even an obviously beneficial thing like GMO.
I personally work as a chemist at an OTC drug company so we see it with our products all the time. Naturalistic conspiracy websites will convince a bunch of people some useful and important chemical is harmful, then some companies advertising that they do not use it, then everyone else is forced to stop using it because fighting misinformation on the internet is too hard (as this thread demonstrates). Then you end up with a less effective and/or more expensive product just because a bunch of natural bullshit

>>11053929
Deliberately to who? Shills? You can separate an argument about the whole natural and organic foods shit from “Monsanto especially Monsanto dindu nuffin! If you think otherwise youre an anti vaxxer moran!!”

But evidently that wasn’t the case

>>11053959
>Deliberately to who
people who recognize that "natural" is a bullshit marketing term and harmful to educated people everywhere

>>11053959
Monsanto is the number one target of the natural lobby, of course it will come up as the specific example. Note it was originally brought up derisively making fun of the absurdity of you thinking they pay people to post here

>>11053965
If that were the point then itd be the point. But it wasn’t entirely or even the primary point

>>11053974
The fact you find that notion absurd while continuing to unabashedly shill for them willfully or otherwise is pretty silly

>>11053959
What would it be like for you if you found out there were no actual shills in this thread and it's all just autism / OCD? Would that radically alter your worldview going forward, or would you just go "oh, I was wrong" and stay pretty much the same afterwards? I kind of wish I could magically force people to see reality in order to watch how knowledge of very confident beliefs turning out to be wrong would change them.
I think I just really hate how confident people get about things they don't really know and are probably wrong about.

>>11053981
>If that were the point then itd be the point. But it wasn’t entirely or even the primary point
um, what?

>>11053987
>im not shilling guys i swear thats why im going to continue going off on these completely page long sperg rants that have nothing to do with the thread

Getting a little desperate, bro

>>11053991
That’s really simple to understand. Im guessing you just didn’t have anything else clever to say

>>11053598
underrated

>>11053993
just letting people know that you think people are paid to be here really harms your credibility, if you want people to be persuaded by your argument (as though you have one beside natural=good and everyone else is paid to be here) you might want to drop the obviously implausible stuff like this and maybe try an argue an actual point

>>11053996
I understand what you said, just not why

Its almost as though you are reading an entirely different thread with your nonsensical rants about shills, green text, and strawmen

>>11054004
Just letting you know following the exact same tactics of shilling every single thread blows your already thin cover of being a shill. I’m literally giving you tips on how to shill better

In the nonexistent likelihood you aren’t shilling, doubling down on a strawmen and whiteknighting Monsanto while claiming to be scientific and educated does absolutely nothing but plummet your credibility and any chance for any discussion you were hoping for

>argue an actual point
There is no point. You made a stupid strawmen which including whiteknighting Monsanto. You decided to just sperg out over this idea instead of structuring an actual argument to a point someone is making

Notice how I didn’t ever argue against the idea of naturalistic fallacies? Not that bright of course you are

>>11053993
OK anon, if I'm a shill, how the fuck would I go about having this thread submitted for shill money? What person with money to give out to professional shills would read this thread and go "good work shill, here's your shill money?" It's a pile of shitposts half made by schizophrenics hunting for shills and half made by autists who can't stop getting into internet arguments on behalf of contrarian points of view. Who do you think is more likely to write way too much on rambling tangents for the sake of autistically correcting someone else? A shill, or a run-of-the-mill, jerks off to chinese cartoons while recreationally abusing cough medicine autism diagnosee?

>>11054020
What are these strawmen you speak of?

Also why do you keep saying whiteknight trying to shoehorn some dumb /b/ terminology into an entirely unrelated concept?

So you have no point except that artificial things are bad and you should only eat natural stuff even though that would mean giving up agriculture all together because agriculture is an entirely artificial concept

>>11054011
Your main point continues to be “waaah dont call me shill or insult Monsanto” while doing everything in your power to make sure of it. You can separate naturalistic fallacies from Monsanto. You didn’t. You can avoid making the error of continuing to fail to do this. You’re not. You can avoid making utterly useless ad hominems. You don’t.

But yeah other than that phenomenal argument lol

>>11054020
>Notice how I didn’t ever argue against the idea of naturalistic fallacies
Thats literally how the OP started, and you are continually attacking people who point it out

>>11054037
>Why does this guy I keep calling a shill keep denying he's a shill? I know, he must be a shill!
?

>>11054037
So your point is because someone said Monsanto at some point you aren't going to pay attention to any of the points mad and just keep repeating "strawman" and "shill" for some reason?

>>11054028
It truly is incredible instead of addressing any actual ridiculous fallacies you made in making such an absurd statement that started this shitstorm you continue to double down on them rather than bother talking about the point of naturalism which you keep acting like is the main point

>>11054036
>So you have no point except artificial things are bad

You’re not very good at reading are you? You’re not very good at much at all

>>11054050
>instead of addressing any actual ridiculous fallacies
I'm not that guy you're arguing with about that shit, I'm just an anon who doesn't understand why you're so convinced autism is shilling.

>>11054050
So is your whole shtick just to ignore every point made and whine about some trivial peripheral thing like shilling in general?

>>11054041
Except im not. Try paying attention

>>11054042
Except your argument isn’t just simply denying being a shill. See this is that strawman i was talking about

>>11054045
Im not arguing against the absurdity of naturalism fallacy. This is why you keep getting called a strawman and shill

>>11054068
>Except your argument isn’t just simply denying being a shill.
Like I said:
>>11054061
You're confusing me with the other anon.
Not even sure how you're confusing me with him, I don't think our posts have anything to do with each other except that my couple of posts have been in response to you and his posts have been in response to you I guess.

>>11054068
>Except im not. Try paying attention
thats literally all of your posts

>Im not arguing against the absurdity of naturalism fallacy
No, you are just whining about an insane belief that Monsanto pays people to be here and never address any actual point at all, just repeating "strawman" over and over as though strawman means "point I do not like and cannot counter so I am going to say it doesn't count"

>>11054067
What exactly am I ignoring? This is that strawman i was talking about.

>>11054061
>double down on shilling
>go into page long rants on it
>continue to whiteknight monsanto
>”shilling! How absurd!!!”

>>11054081
>go into page long rants on it
?
Are you OK, anon-kun? Do you need to take a break and drink some water or something?

>>11054078
>that’s literally all your posts
Evidently wrong, retard. Maybe if you had any intellectual capacity in your brain youd read this
>Notice how I didn’t ever argue against the idea of naturalistic fallacies? Not that bright of course you are
>>11054020

>>11054081
>What exactly am I ignoring?
The dishonesty of companies marketing based on naturalistic fallacy

The inconvenient concept that the natural lobby is in fact bigger than Monsanto

This entire post
>>11053957

You are literally ignoring everything besides your own belief that Monsanto pays everyone who ever posts counter to natural bullshit

>>11054088
>Notice how I didn’t ever argue against the idea of naturalistic fallacies
So what exactly are you arguing?

>>11054089
>the dishonesty of companies marketing based on naturalistic
I never argued against that. Learn how to read >>11054088

And hear you are yet again whiteknight Monsanto for no reason. They are not a mutual concept to the idea of naturalistic fallacies

Go ahead and try finding one post where I disagree with your contention with the naturalistic fallacy

>>11053721
I own my business I wear a suit and tie on days when I have appointments with clients 3-4 days per week. If not I'll wear business casual to the office

>>11054094
It’ll be a far more rewarding learning experience if you found it out yourself. I can truly only imagine your whole goal in this autistic fuckfest was just to make any criticism of your horrific initial argument as opaque as possible

>>11054099
>I never argued against that.
Exactly what I mean by you ignoring every point people make and just whining about peripheral shit like the concept of shilling

>>11054085
You’re either doing a terrible job of samefagging or simply have a doppleganger retard quoting your posts as himself

>>11054099
>They are not a mutual concept to the idea of naturalistic fallacies
They are a pretty useful example in this case that anyone involved would recognize. I seriously hope you realize how natural it is to come up.
Also stop with the cringey /b/ terminology

>>11054106
>of your horrific initial argument as opaque as possible
So horrific that you couldn't counter literally any of it

>>11054108
Thats not ignoring the point. That’s not what was being argued. This is that strawman thing I continue to talk about

Its not peripheral when you just had a complete breakdown over the fact. You attempted to branch two completely separate things as mutual then quadrupled down on it and then broke down over any criticism of a completely fallacy ridden initial point

>>11054122
ah, so strawman just means point you don't want to address. Got it.

>>11054115
No its not. It’s completely and utterly irrelevant. The fact you continue to defend such an absurd point just further lends to this whole thing

>stop pointing out how fucking stupid i am, its cringey!!

>>11054118
There was nothing to argue. I didn’t have any issue with the whole organic critique. I promptly pointed out the ridiculous Monsanto shilling in the post and others that followed and this is where you sperged out

>>11054122
>Thats not ignoring the point. That’s not what was being argued
It very much was. You are the one who is constantly choosing to ignore the actual topic and just keeps sperging on about shills

>>11054134
>haha strawman as a critique? how absurd
Doing your immense samefagging no favors

>>11054140

>company that is constantly attacked for not being natural is utterly irrelevant to a thread about how natural food is " the ONLY food you should be eating"

great point man, totally

>>11054143
>it very much was
It wasn’t unless you actually at one point any of this had to do with organic shit. You even said organic shit and Monsanto were mutual and continue to whiteknight them and get surprised at any criticism of such a ridiculous argument?

>>11054149
Someone posts about the topic, you post about a tiny part of that post you don't like and call the actual point a strawman for some reason and then go on to ignore the actual topic entirely

>>11054150
No one mentioned Monsanto. They have nothing to do with the point of argument you were making about natural foods. And yet you STILL defend them

This is that strawman thing ive been talking about

>>11054149
>Doing your immense samefagging
So a conversation is "samefagging" now?
So you don't know how to use green text and also don't understand the concept of "samefagging" but love using /b/ terminology. Great!

Samefagging isn't just posting in the same thread more than once, it specifically is trying to make different posts seem like they are from different people

>>11054156
You said yourself they were mutual concepts. If it was such a tiny part you would’ve simply dismissed as such but you continue to endlessly defend them and the ridiculous fallacious comparison. It’s almost like you’re too much of a retarded shill to see the point!

>>11054161
>They have nothing to do with the point of argument
I just explained the point to you. Just because the point isn't convenient to your argument doesn't mean it doesn't count

also, thats fucking not what "strawman" means

>>11054164
>Samefagging isn't just posting in the same thread more than once, it specifically is trying to make different posts seem like they are from different people

Precisely. Nonetheless a tiny part of my ar

>>11054170
>I just explained the point
And I just explained why its stupid and why you continuing to shill for them and defend such a bombastically stupid point makes you look like a complete and utter shill

>>11054168
>If it was such a tiny part you would’ve simply dismissed as such
but its literally the only thing you are posting about, so thats not really an option. You continually refuse to engage any other aspects of the argument

Holy shit, this thread exploded

But I find it silly that some anon is sperging out about people shilling for monsanto when the reality is still just that crops with resistances and shit are better than everyone being unable to eat because blight killed all of your fucking potatoes.

but props to your moral superiority bro

>>11054178
>And I just explained why its stupid
No, you just said it was stupid with no explanation. You are for some reason just made with the idea of them being brought up in an obviously related conversation

>>11054178
Please point out precisely where you think I was trying to imply I was different people

>>11054178
also, if saying you are dumb for thinking people get paid to be here is "defending monsanto" I don't even know what to say

>>11054182
So its impossible for you to say “im not shilling and my initial point was irrelevant, therefore let’s discuss something else about my point” ?

You’re either admitting to being a complete retard or the point was essential

>>11054183
See this is why you keep getting called a shill and strawmen. Not once did I disagree with the naturalism fallacies. Meanwhile any point criticizing Monsanto is branched as such

>>11054188
I explained exactly why. Saying there’s no reason is not a substitute for your obvious strawman. I thoroughly outlined
why. Try harder

>>11054193
This entire thread?

>>11054199
Considering the lengths you’re going to try and quash an idea rather than argue this phenomenal argument of yours while finding the idea of shilling absurd really just highlights how self unaware you are

>>11054207
>“im not shilling and my initial point was irrelevant
I am not only saying I am not shilling. I am saying it is very unlikely that anyone has ever shilled for any company on /ck/ and you sound like a fucking idiot for wanting to believe that that is a thing

But I will certainly not say "my initial point was irrelevant" I stand by everything I stated in my original post


also, still waiting for you to address any of the points mde, please start here
>>11053957

>>11054213
>I explained exactly why
So now you are just gonna start making stuff up?
>This entire thread?
Oh, so you just aren't gonna answer the question once again
>rather than argue this phenomenal argument
I have posted a whole bunch of stuff, 99% of which you just ignore and keep talking about conspiracies of shills and thinking everyone besides you is the same person

>>11054218
>continue to absolutely sperg out in page long rants
>shilling is so absurd guys!!!

You defend every point you make which includes whiteknighting Monsanto and bringing them up for no actual reason? You talked about the OP being inflammatory to that idea but finding bringing up Monsanto unprompted not

>still waiting for you to address
Still waiting for you to not be a failed abortion and realizing im not arguing against naturalistic fallacies

>>11054228
Its not my fault you’re being petty and dismissive over getting an explanation. I am answering the question. You’re pretending like you haven’t been pretending to be someone else

>i have posted a bunch of stuff
Right. “Monsanto is so rad!!” is totally worth recognizing

>>11054231
>bringing them up for no actual reason
Do you honestly not understand how they are related?
>You talked about the OP being inflammatory to that idea but finding bringing up Monsanto unprompted not
dude, what?
>realizing im not arguing against naturalistic fallacies
No, you are just arguing against people who are specifically doing that. Makes sense

Basically you are saying this whole rant of yours is just because you got mad at someone posting the word "Monsanto", and you actually not posting a defense of the topic of the thread even though you were obviously in this thread arguing about it before Monsanto was brought up, and also have repeated referenced arguments you have had like this with other people on other days

>>11054236
>Right. “Monsanto is so rad!!”
yeah, me saying Monsanto is not more evil than the natural lobby and also pointing out that it is unlikely they pay people to be here is me saying they are "rad"

>You’re pretending like you haven’t been pretending to be someone else
Again, I invite you to specify where you think I am possibly pretending to be two different people

>>11054257
I “understand” how they are. That doesn’t mean bringing them up then continuously proceeding to whiteknight them to this very post is the slightest bit relevant

>dude what
Again. You’re fucking retarded and/or have someone claiming your posts as theirs and/or are a samefag that cant keep up

>No you are arguing against people specifically doing that
And im not arguing against the naturalistic fallacy. How hard is this for your dumb ass to understand? You keep circling back to this point then get befuddled when I explain im not disagreeing. Then you continue to vehemently defend the position im arguing against while simultaneously asking what im arguing about. Try keeping up

>even though you were obviously in this thread arguing about it before Monsanto was brought up
So now you’re just desperately strawmanning again? I literally did not make a single post regarding that

Are you sure this isn’t just your autism and conspiracy theories now? Your original post defended Monsanto for no reason. I pointed out the bullshit conflation with your point about organic foods and repeatedly poined out the absurdity which you continue to defend and continue to defend Monsanto on, while raging about shilling while doing everything a shill does

Tl;dr you’re a retarded shill

>>11054269
>natural and organic companies are big and stupid while monsanto is the little scientific and innovative guy!!
Totally not shilling

>>11054282
>then continuously proceeding to whiteknight
I am literally just saying I am not being paid by them. You are the one who constantly brings them up in every post. Me correcting you for saying dumb, wrong things is not "whiteknighting"
>And im not arguing against the naturalistic fallacy.
Sure looks like you are when you get mad at people who point out how "natural" companies are marketing bullshit
>you keep circling back to this point
Thats because that is the fucking topic of the thread man. Just because its not the specific thing you are most mad about doesn't mean its not the topic and the thing people are trying to discuss here
>So now you’re just desperately strawmanning again
Again, thats not what that word means. Also, what were you even doing here before Monsanto was mentioned?

>Are you sure this isn’t just your autism and conspiracy theories now
Jesus christ man, are you just repeating things people are saying about you now. You are the one saying Monsanto is paying everyone else to be here and that everyone else is the same person. Then you say everyone else is formulating conspiracies? What are you even referencing?

>Your original post defended Monsanto for no reason
Again, you willfully misunderstanding the reason does not mean there is no reason, it was perfectly germane to the topic
>continue to defend Monsanto
again, you are the one constantly bringing them back up, I am just calling your conspiracy bullshit dumb

>>11054301
Regardless of whether you like Monsanto you must recognize that their business model is based on research and development of scientific and technological innovations, while the natural lobby is based on marketing against innovation

>>11054317
>I am literally just not saying im not paid by them
Thats not what you said at all and continue not to do

>sure sounds like it
But all you were saying before was how i was ignoring that point in favor of Monsanto? Which is it? Im not arguing against naturalistic fallacies like ive said a billion times. You simply making that point doesn’t make any other point you have mutual with that. Like ive already said. Bit ironic especially since you only focus on Monsanto, sure seems like shilling

>that’s because its the topic
Its the topic you also continue to stray from. When i say circle back you just randomly bring it up in the midst of this then i remind your goldfish memory i dont disagre with it. And here we are yet again

>thats not what that word means
It’s precisely “what it means” you’ll have to point out where it isn’t

>are you just repeating the things
It’s almost like your own silly logic is getting used against you to expose its absurdity as an argument. Crazy isnt it! You actually should abide by the argumentative standards that you set!

>willfully misunderstand
You seem to be willfully continuing to play into that narrative with your willfull defense of Monsanto and willful sperg out in this whole thing over that notion

>>11054321
>guys monsanto is totally the good guy here
Guys, really, no shilling, it’s completely absurd to think so

>>11054345
I mean they kinda are. Care to make an argument as to how anything I said was incorrect? You just want to keep spurging about the concept of Monsanto?

>>11052651
wtf I hate babish now!

>>11052651
I really doubt they grew all that shit in their fucking back yard

>>11054359
>I mean they kinda are
That’s not an argument. Here you are going back to Square A. Make a strawman, get called out, get pissy when nobody bothers giving a serious reply to some stupid massive generalization of “scientific and innovative”

This is quite scientific but not all that innovative !

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf

>>11054339
>But all you were saying before was how i was ignoring that point in favor of Monsanto
You are ignoring literally every point and are only saying Monsanto is bad for unspecified reasons and also paying people to be here

>you also continue to stray from. When i say circle back
Dude, there is no way you honestly perceive the thread as being like this. This pretty clearly shows you are intentionally being disingenuous rather than just being a dumb person

>It’s precisely “what it means” you’ll have to point out where it isn’t
Again, for your reference. A "strawman" is when someone creates a fake and intentionally flawed point that their opposition is not actually arguing but presenting it as their point only to easily tear it down. I don't think you have used this correctly even once here

>It’s almost like your own silly logic
You are literally arguing that multiple people are the same person and that Monsanto pays a force of people to be here. That is quite literally conspiracy theory bullshit. You can't just randomly say conspiracy at other things that are entirely unrelated to conspiracies just because someone else said the word conspiracy and it made you mad

.with your willfull defense of Monsanto
Yeah, Monsanto is fine, so what? What do you have against them?

>>11054345
Do you genuinely believe that no one would possibly say Monsanto is not literally evil without being paid by them?

>>11054378
>Straight up posting a link to a conspiracy theory website

>this is quite scientific but not all that innovative
They are developing plants with novel traits. How is that not innovation, they are literally making new things that previously did not exist

>>11054387
>ignoring every point
Youve consistently ignored the point that the point of this argument as repeatedly stated was not naturalism, as you continue to engage in, sure seems like the point when you do so

>Dude
Dude this is like dude actually like dude how its gone. Like dude dozens of shitflinging like dude then you dude ask for naturalism arguments, but dude! I dont disagree but dude you then ask again a dozen posts later, and dude i just mentioned this

>fake and intentionally flawed point
Which you’ve done multiple times.

>you are literally arguing multiple people
You’re literally arguing ive secretly been some organic foods cultist this whole time posting for ages before your shill job, while i continue to literally say i dont even disagre with the naturalistic fallacy

Meanwhile you continue to blatantly and utterly shill and whiteknight for Monsanto and CONTINUE to go through ALL this arguing over that initial contention

God forbid you hold yourself to the same standards as you do others right? Nah its only cool when im hypocritical

>>11054420
>Youve consistently ignored the point that the point of this argument as repeatedly stated was not naturalism
Please see the OP, thats precisely what it is about, it was never about your personal vendetta toward Monsanto

>>11054424
Please try seeing a neurologist to see the issue with your memory

>>11052651
I ate McDonald's yesterday for my first fast food meal in forever and had the shits and cramping and bloating before 8 pm

>>11054392
Not anyone intelligent. Anyone going to such great lengths and not recognizing a single fault of theirs is either a shill abd or mind numbingly retarded. The fact you keep focusing on this exact point doesn’t do you any well

>>11053540
>Implying retards know what proteins are exactly

This is probably the biggest issue

>>11054405
Those are Monsanto documents. Are you calling them conspiracy theorists?

>>11054420
>Which you’ve done multiple times.
I have not, but encourage you to specify when I have. Though every other time you have claimed some bad thing I was doing you were similarly unable to specify

You have used the term "strawman" in almost every post here, every single time in an inappropriate manner

and again, I am not going to just say "actually you are right, monsanto is evil" that isn't fucking "whiteknighting" it doesn't have anything to do with that concept
>God forbid you hold yourself to the same standards as you do others right
What is this even referencing?

>>11053865
I do it for free, nigga.

>>11054438
I like how you constantly post about Monsanto and then saying I am the one who can't stop talking about Monsanto. I would be very happy to discuss any of the other points brought up but you only ever post about Monsanto and misunderstood rhetorical terms

>>11054443
No, I am saying you are the kind of person who goes to conspiracy websites and are trying to get us to give them clicks

>>11054438
Thats why almost all educated people are fine with GMOs

>>11054457
>conspiracy website

>>11054446
>I have not
Sure

>though every other time
So you do admit to samefagging? Cool. Saying its not right doesn’t make it incorrect

And yet here you are continuously shilling Monsanto whiteknighting going through all these mental gymnastics to ultimately just justify anything they do rather than apparently just simply ignore what you thought was central to your point

>What is this even referencing?
God i really feel sorry for you.

>>11054468
look at their main page

>>11054452
I didn’t ever say it was one person or another bringing them up. Im saying you keep whiteknighting them, which you do. This is that strawman thing i was talking about

>>11054473
>So you do admit to samefagging?
What are you even talking about? Posting more than ocne in a thread is not "samefagging"

Are you just trying to misuse as many terms as possible to keep the discussion away from the actual points you refuse to discuss?

>o ultimately just justify anything they do
Like what? What bad things are they doing that I am justifying?

>>11054485
Again, whiteknighting and strawman both do not apply to this situation.

So your expectation is that you should be able to say blatantly false and absurd things and then when the incorrectness or absurdity is pointed out that it is the other person's fault for discussing it?

>>11054489
I think you might just be completely fucked in the head. There’s no other explanation for having such abysmal memory on anything being discussed.

>Like what?
Completely shielding them and going to such autistic lengths to do so? This whole shitstorm erupted from me criticizing you whiteknighting Monsanto as some benevolent company despite it apparently being irrelevant to your point

>>11054489
also, to elaborate on this, I don't have to agree with everything Monsanto to refute the idea that they are paying people to be here, or that they are not an evil behemoth, or point out that the resistance to them is a great example of the natural food lobby's power

>>11054498
Except they do.

>So your expectation is that you should be able to say blatantly false and absurd things and then when the incorrectness or absurdity is pointed out that it is the other person's fault for discussing it?
Hahaha oh you’re too funny

>>11054511
But nonetheless you are shilling for them

>>11054475
You’re not making an argument you know.

>>11054510
>Completely shielding them and going to such autistic lengths to do so
By saying they aren't paying me to be here?
That is a "complete shield" and an "autistic length"

>erupted from me criticizing you whiteknighting Monsanto as some benevolent company
Except you didn't "criticize" you just sperged pedantically about me being a shill. and again, my initial post was saying how silly it is to believe they shill here it never even said Monsanto was good, only that you sound dumb for believing they pay people to be here, then I went on to say that the "natural" lobby is bad and powerful but that wasn't what you wanted to talk about so you ignored it

>>11054528
>By saying they aren’t paying me
That’s not what you’re just doing. Stop bullshitting for once

>except you didn’t criticize
I can see you’re just saying the contrary of anything i am at this point

>its so silly despite the fact ive been fighting tooth and nail for hours to quash such notion and defend them!

I need to get to sleep. My job calls for me in the morning and doesn’t rely on shitposting pretty poorly for Monsanto. Until next thread, rat fuck

>>11054539
>That’s not what you’re just doing
Lets revisit my initial post (actually my second post but the first you responded to)
>>11053777
Nowhere do I say anything good about Monsanto. I only brought them up as an example of a company OP was probably referring to.
then I proceeded to discuss how the natural lobby is based on a bunch of even larger business interests than Monsanto. Again not a defense of Monsanto, I never once said a good thing about them until much later in the thread as you continually brought them up, the post was entirely an attack on the natural food lobby and the dumb beliefs they have engendered in people like the OP, or indeed anyone who would think Monsanto pays people to be here

Then you response is simply just saying I am a shill and not addressing the content of my post in any way, which is basically you whole thing

>>11053559
>incomplete protein
Literally a myth