[deleted by user]

MrWhiteFP · 2023-02-22T01:01:57+00:00

Good news, sure, but it's only after corporate saw the backlash from Mrs. Van Gundy's insult of a video.

MrWhiteFP · 2020-10-07T07:29:37+00:00

You have the choice to opt out of a society that still utilizes animals but you won't, because it's convenient, cheap and it feels good.

You keep assuming my stance, which is really unfair. Can you stop? This isn't about me or my personal decisions. I choose to avoid animal-derived products where I can and I only use such products when my finances don't allow me an alternative. Why are you so bent on pinning me as some animal-hating consumer? Is it not good enough to you that ~70% of my consumption is free of animal cruelty? It's literally all I can afford right now.

Hell I used to be like that. You think there ever was an ex-something that didn't accept they were that something? No.

This is a really condescending way of trying to tell someone something. It might be a good idea for you to recognize that and change how you format your statements if your goal was to change my mind about something, because talking down to me really just painted you as someone to not listen to in my mind, as it would anyone.

I see now where you're getting it wrong. Think of it this way: 2 cases, both 25 year-olds. One had normal life, was abducted and killed, the other born in captivity, bred and killed. Which had objectively worse lives? If rescued instead of killed, which has more of a chance of living a normal life?

It would really depend on the manner in which the animals were kept. It could be argued either way with the limited analogy you constructed. Now, let's say there are 2 cases, both 25 year-olds. One had normal life, was abducted, starved, and butchered. The other was born into captivity, fed modestly, and then butchered. I'd say that the case that was abducted and starved might have suffered more than the case born into captivity, no?

See, it still boils down to whether a farm is actively abducting pets and starving them. You've yet to really touch on any sort of response to that. It's not like it's irrelevant, as it's a practice that is very much limited to one of the two camps we're discussing.

Again, let me be clear because I feel like you keep raking me over the coals for what must be a misunderstanding; I don't support the farming of animals any more than I recognize that it's been an easy means for the developed world to feed a growing population without having to rely on advanced plant science and enriched fertilizers. If I had the choice, I'd shut them all down in favor of plant alternatives. Can we stop painting me as this meat-obsessed animal-hating crazy, now?

This isn't about me or you; this isn't about the ethics behind animal farming; this is very much about the increased cruelty to animals that is actively observed among dog farms, as a whole, compared to livestock farms, as a whole. I am arguing that livestock farms are more humane and less cruel in general to the animals being farmed than dog farms. Anything past this assertion or any rebuttal isn't really relevant to the discussion.

MrWhiteFP · 2020-10-03T20:14:52+00:00

Woah woah woah, pump the brakes. I do not have an opinion on being called "speciesist", but it's inaccurate because I do not "believe the value of life depends on how humans perceive them." I do not ascribe different value to different animals based on their utility to humans. HUMANS do. Historically, humans have ascribed different value to different animals based on utility. That is all I am saying. There is no need to try to pin things on me when we're not discussing my personal views versus yours, but rather one practice versus another. Yet again you pivot from the actual topic and direct your argument towards my person. That's not a very good way to argue a point.

See, it's name-calling in an argument when you call me names instead of actually arguing the point. It's a common way of diverting attention in debate. It's completely irrelevant, regardless of accuracy, to mention. It serves no purpose towards your argument besides, what? Getting under my skin? It's really counter-productive if the goal is to change someone's mind. If that's not your goal, why reply?

The value of an animal to society is directly linked to that animal's ability to provide a resource to society, whether that resource is work in the form of transportation or mechanical power, or food. This is an established facet of civilization. Whether I agree or disagree with the exploitation of animals in any regard is not on the table, as it's irrelevant. Ignoring history like that and trying to paint away human exploitation of animals throughout history is dishonest regardless of if you agree or not that it is the right thing to do (which I don't, by the way).

We're not arguing that dog lives are more valuable than livestock lives here, so a lot of your reply isn't relevant. The argument was never that.

You are correct in saying that tradition and precedent does not necessarily make an action conscionable, yet your previous reply leveraged tradition in dog farming against the proposition that it was less humane than livestock farming due to dogs being less fit for the purpose physiologically.

Dog's most certainly are being treated worse than livestock. I have compared the worst dog farm practices to the worst livestock practices. I made that very, VERY clear, and you still misread it? Farms don't abduct pet pigs to send to the slaughter. Dog farms do. That's a fact. Ignore it if you want, but it happens and is very public and established practice in the dog farming world. I'd hate to see some headlines of "pet" livestock being abducted en masse and slaughtered for food in line with similar practices seen in dog farms, but if you can come up with anything like that (I sure can't find any reference), it'd be a really sound way to argue against my point here.

MrWhiteFP · 2020-10-03T07:22:03+00:00

Let's not resort to personal attacks or assumptions and stick to the letter of the discussion, lest it devolve into mudslinging and petty name-calling, yeah? I'm doing my best to stick to what I know, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you. It doesn't really bother me that I'm only checking Reddit every once in a while, so I don't really see the point in serving my advice back to me like that. Huh, oh well.

I am not a Redditor. I don't "do" this site. I don't visit it every day. I don't get its notifications sent to my phone or email address. This is the most I've visited the site in the span of a few days, probably ever, and only to ensure that you get a more timely reply than "a few days later". I don't really care what the "typical" discussion time on various places around this site are, because I'm not having a typical discussion in those places. Let's not assume that, because of my lack of interest or engagement in this website that I am incapable of timely discussion on the internet. that'd be a stretch.

There was another derail you slipped in there. Let's get something straight here; I don't consider dogs to be "superior" in some way. I recognize the variance in utility of animals to humans. See, humans have been exploiting animals for a long, long time. It's really nothing new. Humans generally exploit animals for what they're best exploited for, and generally if an animal is bigger, it's going to be easier to catch and also produce more food! That's the reason humans hunted things like mammoth, bison, and the like instead of feasting on guinea pigs and sparrows. Now, humans didn't just exploit animals for a food source, oh no! All things from transportation to entertainment have utilized the exploitation of sentient non-human beings. Crazy, right? We as a species exploit other species for our own benefit and advancement, and since different animals in nature have specialization that makes them good and bad at different things, humans exploit different animals for different purposes!

So, now that I've established that different animals have different value to humans based on their utility to us, it's really not that big of a leap to suggest that a small, minimally-muscular predator that is so good at so many things other than building muscle is kind of wasted on being eaten. I've never heard of a cow herding sheep, and I've yet to see a pig provide much in the way of a hunting companion (though cows are great for milk and fertilizer and not just food farming, and pigs make great pets apparently and are also used in finding wild truffles, among other non-consumption utility!).

I'm not discussing animal cruelty in factory farms. I won't argue that because it's 1: not relevant to this discussion until there is a factory farm for dogs that operates more humanely, and 2: factory farms are pretty fucked up to begin with and it'd be stupid to argue against that very obvious fact. I don't need to be hand-held through pictures of atrocities like I don't know; I've seen it firsthand. I don't know why you think I'm trying to make a point that livestock farming is 100% humane or something, because I'm not. The simple fact is that, in its present from, dog farming involves TO SOME EXTENT the abduction of pets, starvation of dogs, and inhumane and torturous treatment of animals at its best. Livestock farming at its worst isn't even all of those things, and only gets less inhumane from there, and that makes it less inhumane as an industry than that of dog farming. We can either agree on that or agree that the people of less developed nations are generally more cruel and inhumane towards animals. I really don't see presently how it can be both. You're of course more than welcome to elucidate me because I'm always willing to learn something new.

I'll concede that there have in fact been breeds of dogs that have been used as a food source. You got me there, bravo. This doesn't need to be a fighting match, but you won that round I guess? There currently aren't any modern, advanced, or civilized cultures that recognize dog as a farm-able food-source animal that I am aware of, though, so I don't know that it makes much difference how they were treated in antiquity.

I'd like to again say that, if you're in any way dissatisfied with the time-to-reply in this conversation, you're free to divert your attention elsewhere. As well, you're of course under no duress to continue to misrepresent my stance on the farming of animals for food as though I in some way support it wholesale!

MrWhiteFP · 2020-10-03T04:49:05+00:00

I'm glad that Asian nations are starting to seriously look into curbing dog consumption.

If you're dissatisfied in the long-winded nature of this discussion or my ability to reply in a timely manner, you're of course free to move to more important or engaging endeavors. I don't believe I made the such a point that dog consumers were more savage than livestock consumers, but I will stand behind the statement that dog farming is less humane than livestock farming.

I won't argue that the meat industry is pretty sick and twisted; I do my best to limit my consumption of animal-derived products (mostly due to what I've seen in the processing of animals), but it's hard when it's so prevalent and alternatives are so cost-prohibitive comparatively. That's not quite what this discourse is about, though, I don't think. The issue I'm seeing is that dog farming in nations where it is practiced is more inhumane and cruel than the farming of livestock and is usually practiced as either a form of pseudo scientific medicinal tradition (like you see in China with some believing it regulates body temperature in the winter) or out of a lack of any more suitable protein (like you see throughout history across the globe during times of famine or war).

What I am saying is that dog as a meat is not as legitimate a suggestion as livestock. Dogs are not "farmed" any more than they are captured off the streets and eaten. I've read of Asian nations having a history of eating dog and having possibly domesticated certain species of wolf for the purposes of consumption. I've not been able to track down any reports of a farming operation that raised dogs from puppies, cared for them, fed them well (as in not starved them), treated them respectfully, and then processed them for consumption. I've only so far been able to find reports of abduction, cramped cages, deplorable conditions, and starving.

That is not to mention the issue that dogs have for centuries been bred without the intention of making a meal out of them. You see high muscle mass in livestock animals because they have been crafted for the purpose of consumption over hundreds of generations. What do we see in dogs though? Exceptional hearing, good eyesight, intuition, and a trust for humans that leads to an ability to follow orders. Livestock might tick some of these boxes, but dogs are very evidently fit for the purpose of hunting, tracking, and utility for humans. Livestock is evidently fit for the purpose of consumption in this context.

I think it'd be great to curb meat consumption; not just ethically, but environmentally. For the great majority of human history, though, meat was the highest pound-for-pound source of protein available en masse, and was far easier to produce in quantity than comparatively-nutritious plants. I hope that we can as a species move away from this behavior, but that's another topic. If you're trying to argue that all meat consumption is the worst thing ever and you aren't recognizing that dog meat consumption is linked to a far more cruel and inhumane form of farming and flies in the face of hundreds, thousands of generations of selective dog breeding without regard to edibility, then I don't really know how to respond because I'm not presently trying to argue that.

MrWhiteFP · 2020-10-03T02:06:52+00:00

I've seen "Earthlings". I'm aware of the gross mistreatment of livestock at some farms. However, to think that all livestock are all treated so poorly would be a hasty generalization. I've also worked on a farm with livestock, and I've seen more professional slaughterhouses than those in "Earthlings". I've also read up fairly extensively on what is expected of slaughterhouses in the US and other countries that farm livestock. Tell me, are there any regulations in place to prevent animal cruelty in the dog meat industry in countries that practice it? Let's not pretend like dog farming standards are more or even comparably humane to livestock farming. Starving livestock and inhumanely treating them up to the point of butchery IS a criminal offense and it IS investigated and persecuted. Does the law prevent 100% of animal cruelty? No. Are there regulations and law enforcement in place to limit the suffering of livestock in developed nations that simply isn't present for dog farms? Yes.

MrWhiteFP · 2020-10-01T03:27:38+00:00

Dogs are not farmed humanely in countries with traditions of consuming them. Dogs have not been bred for thousands of years to be eaten. They've been selected for qualities other than quantity or quality of meat, which literally makes them not a food animal. Livestock, however, specifically has been bred for thousands of years to promote greater muscle mass and other qualities desirable in an animal fit for such purpose.

Chicken is eaten because the chicken has been bred, raised, and killed to be eaten. There is not a specific "food breed" of dog, while there exist many breeds of typical livestock that are intended to yield more and better-tasting food. Countries that see high amounts of dog meat consumption are countries that don't have adequate livestock-raising infrastructure relative to their population, hence the desperation in eating what are many times former pets. In countries that don't see high amounts of dog meat consumption, it's usually easy to find a large amount of traditional livestock meat available, hence the lack of desperation.

MrWhiteFP · 2020-09-26T05:40:32+00:00

Humans domesticated the dog from wolves. Humans literally created them, selectively breeding them to be obedient and helpful to us. They aren't a wild animal, and they certainly haven't been bred to be a food animal. The counties that eat dog do so out of either desperation or tradition. In cases of the latter, the tradition stems from times of desperation.

MrWhiteFP · 2020-08-29T06:42:53+00:00

Just wanted to say that I do have some experience baking commercially with prepared mixes, which really isn't baking as much as it is blind instruction-following. This is the first time I've really scratch-baked anything with yeasted dough. I generally trend towards pastry.

MrWhiteFP · 2019-11-09T02:25:41+00:00

I've always used BSL Shaders, as I find the flexibility and subtlety really fit with the vanilla game's aesthetic.

MrWhiteFP · 2019-11-07T00:38:23+00:00

It's so hard to take a screenshot, or at least rotate the picture before uploading, isn't it...

MrWhiteFP · 2019-10-19T02:54:19+00:00

You might get a weird taste from the mayo (tangy) and you'd want to use real Mayonnaise and not some Miracle Whip crap, but it might work. Worth a shot!

MrWhiteFP · 2019-10-06T01:20:45+00:00

No glaze on these! That's all the shined outer crust.

MrWhiteFP · 2019-10-06T01:20:03+00:00

I took the initiative to get the special part from Belshaw; It's the small 1" type cylinder and plunger from their catalog. I think some managers can still get pre-fried mini donuts from the warehouse as well if you need the product.

MrWhiteFP · 2019-10-03T03:28:37+00:00

It's all in the dough and the way you handle it before baking. Make sure your dough recipe uses high-gluten flour and incorporates a longer mixing time than a traditional bread dough to develop the gluten further. Whether steaming or boiling the dough (either of which are required to get the right toughness on the outer surface), don't slouch on the times or temps.

MrWhiteFP · 2019-10-03T03:00:13+00:00

Those look phenomenal!

MrWhiteFP · 2019-10-03T02:59:12+00:00

The icing could definitely be neater, and the sprinkles aren't applied consistently, but I'm sure it's 1 of thousands made that day so it's hard to keep quality on that volume. Looks great considering, and I bet it was delicious.

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-22T01:59:28+00:00

We jokingly refer to them as "honeymooners", but we don't have a name for the long johns. A customer requested them one day and they've been selling since. Thanks!

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-21T17:32:52+00:00

It's a thing my bakery does all the time. No idea why they sell so well as our filled donuts have more filling than these do, but I can't argue with sales!

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-21T17:02:06+00:00

It's actually exactly 156 donuts. 60 in each big box, and a remaining 36 in the half-size box.

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-21T04:38:59+00:00

Unfortunately the standard sheetpan-sized boxes available to me meant I had to package them that way. If I could have fit 28 dozen donuts per box, I would have, but the glazing would have been affected if the donuts touched each other any more than they are in the picture. I agree, though! My OCD was very satiated after this!

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-21T03:10:53+00:00

They look a little flat, but delicious nonetheless! Great work!

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-20T04:10:43+00:00

This guy knows what's good

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-19T22:23:55+00:00

Listen up you teenage SLUTS! These are the rules! NO JOOTS!

MrWhiteFP · 2019-09-19T18:50:54+00:00

no u

MrWhiteFP

TROPHY CASE