Today I went to burger king for the first time in years. It was even worse than I remembered it. (had the vegetarian option, don’t know if it’s as bad with the meat burgers) Additionally it’s fucking expensive and not as quick as it used to be. So my question is why do some people go there regulary?
Technically, dirt contains some nutritional value. So yeah, you are correct that fast food does contain some nutrition. Eating a diet of strictly potatoes will, technically, allow you to “grow” but like industrial fast food, will come with adverse health consequences. So the question isn’t if it technically has some amount of nutritional value but whether it’s actually good for you. Does the “food” allow you to maintain life and grow to a degree consistent with the average seems to me to be a reasonable definition.
A diet with a lot of fast food is nutritionally poor and full of many things such as sugar, salt, and saturated fats that cause long-term adverse health consequences. It’s been linked to everything from a lower capacity for memory and learning to diabetes, heart disease and of course obesity.
There is simply no way that you can say that fast food is “good” for you or that it should be eaten routinely. Making the clear distinction that fast “food” is not food to the same degree as a healthful diet is one of the best things you can do for community health.
I never said it’s healthy or that someone should eat it regularly, so that’s a strawman. But it is still food, with much higher nutritional value than dirt, and it can definitely sustain you, which you yourself admitted, so by that same definition you gave fast food is food.
Define “sustain”.
You are reading a lot into my words in order to try to be right about a quibbling little thing and frankly it’s annoying.
If you’re stuck in an island for years where the only thing you have to eat is fast food you will survive therefore food. The same cannot be said for dirt.
LOL. What was that you were saying about a strawman?
You asked for a definition of sustain, I gave you a concrete example of what I would use to qualify things as providing sustenance, or indeed qualifying as food. Which is why I qualify fast food as food, you on the other hand do not, so perhaps you should define sustain instead of asking for my definition.
Nope. You shifted your goal posts and are determined to be “right” at any costs. You don’t even have an actual point to make.
Good bye.
I never shifted my goals, from the beginning I’m calling you out on saying fast food is not food, you’re the one who used dirt as a counter example of things that are clearly not food yet would, according to you, fit the definition of food. I’m giving you an example that clearly exemplifies why fast food sustains you, and is therefore food, but dirt doesn’t. If you weren’t babbling on and on trying to throw as many arguments as possible to try to evade from the simple fact that you haven’t even given a food definition that doesn’t include fast food you might see the point that by any meaningful definition of the word (including the one you gave) fast food is food.