good or bad?

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

crixuz Rank: #5

Channel: politics

next random

Comment

good or bad?. .. I think donating to charity isn't a smart idea because people will be "dropping" stuff all the time which is a can of worms that best be left unopened

+395

Views: 19091 Submitted: 08/19/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Sounds like child abuse

3574

Cards Against Common Sense

lively nippy horrible Lapwing

2490

Sexual harassment

2442

Pisug Ytuctof Tochimugl

2428

Meanwhile in South Africa...

2408

Sambyoch Edinilt Umercalyod

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (77)

First 2 Last

[ 77 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#3 - eljimbo#197 on commentsRank#197

Reply+37

(08/19/2017)[-]

I think donating to charity isn't a smart idea because people will be "dropping" stuff all the time which is a can of worms that best be left unopened.
But I have no problem at all with the food not going to waste as animal feed, compost or energy.

#11 to #3 - anon id: f0e88617

Reply+8

(08/20/2017)[-]

that's a real ****** excuse for not donating food

#30 to #11 - robuntu

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

You're welcome to donate as much food as you want to the homeless.

We're talking about a law that forces other people to donate. That's an entirely different thing.

#13 to #11 - eljimbo#197 on commentsRank#197

Reply-6

(08/20/2017)[-]

Would you like to own a business where your "customers" are rocking up and "accidentally dropping" produce all the time because it goes directly to charity by law?

Think about the words I am using and not the words you believe I am using.....

#14 to #13 - iamnuff

Reply+16

(08/20/2017)[-]

It doesn't benifit the customer at all to drop things, and anything damaged or destroyed would be disposed of as waste anyway.

The maybe handful of people who'd smash food specifically as a way to try and ''donate'' are well worth it, considering the amount of food that will be going to charities.

A negligable dip in profits (not even a fraction of a percent) in exchange for starving people getting to eat?
Worth it.

#26 to #13 - useroftheLOLZ

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Simple, you break it, you bought it. Can't, well you can wait for the police.

#23 to #3 - voltkills

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

the number of people who would do that and the damage that would cause to a company is far, far outweighed by the good it will do for people.

#2 - blatherskite#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Good in the sense it is practical, bad in the sense that it goes against freedoms.

Double edged sword, really.

#16 to #2 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply+11

(08/20/2017)[-]

I see it less as a violation of freedom, and more of a removal of liability.
Grocery stores used to do just that, of their own volition, but someone claimed the food made them sick, and sued.
Now that grocery stores are forced to give up food, there is zero liability if the food may or may not be spoiled and would be up to the consumer to determine if the food was still good.
I'm as Libertarian as Recreational ICBMs and even I support this.

#17 to #16 - blatherskite#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

That is a good point, actually

Corporation induced laws, but for the common good

I can swing with that, I guess

#54 to #16 - cutiepyro

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

like an actual libertarian or what

#59 to #54 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Like I agree with some of the Ancap memes.

#60 to #59 - cutiepyro

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

what's ancap

#64 to #60 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Anarcho-Capitalist.
I'm not an anarchist in the least though.

#52 to #16 - oxymoronking

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

I mean it would have been better to just remove the stores liability for foods given out free of charge...

#24 to #16 - anon id: 2a0c62e4

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Then why not directly say "you are not liable for donated food" instead of making 'forceful donations?'

#5 to #2 - blatherskite#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply+11

(08/20/2017)[-]

Before y'all downvote me to oblivion hear me out

Sure, wasting food is bad, but the food is still their property. They have the right to do so with it as they please. The law has good intentions and good effect, I like that, but it still comes at a price - The supermarkets' freedoms, businesses owned by private citizens.

They are basically saying "Give us your property, or we'll **** with you". I don't like that

Punish me if you must

#7 to #5 - Blastattack

Reply+19

(08/20/2017)[-]

It's saying "give us your trash you wasteful pricks. let's use it for something useful"

#9 to #7 - blatherskite#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Agreed, but it is not trash until discarded. Discarding the food, if I understand this correctly, is destruction of food and therefore illegal.

Supermarket CEOs should be persuaded to give it freely, not have it taken by force. That is wrong in itself, despite the good it does.

#10 to #5 - anon id: f0e88617

Reply+7

(08/20/2017)[-]

property rights have to end somewhere man. I'm all for free market capitalism, but there is always going to have to be some sensible limit. if it were taking otherwise good foo that the market could sell that would be some commie ********, but telling them to put waste product to good use that they would've given up anyway in my mind is fair

#76 to #10 - blatherskite#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply0

(08/21/2017)[-]

We will have to agree to disagree, but I'll thumb you up anyway since you are not entirely wrong in my opinion.

#12 to #10 - blatherskite#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

I live nearby a supermarket that sells its products at a heavy discount if it is about to be discarded. One example is when at one time they were selling a respectable stockpile of bread for pennies, literally.

However I am willing to meet you halfway; if this law was made in conference to a sizable amount of supermarket owners then at least I can be assured this law is for the common good, and not the government assuming it can control the people by forcing them to give food.

#67 to #5 - mrthezho

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

I agree. They should be strongly encouraged to donate food by giving out some type of reward, rather than forcing them to do it by law.

#57 to #5 - anon id: e43e5479

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

I've never seen someone so passionate about increasing the amount of needless waste in the world.

#70 to #5 - darktoucan#464 on commentsRank#464

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Libertarianism is for you my friend.

#1 - anon id: 141b5a13

Reply+13

(08/19/2017)[-]

Good, why waste food?

#22 - gamestumps

Reply+3

(08/20/2017)[-]

This sounds nice

Until somebody gets sick and Supermarkets start getting sued for giving away expired products even though they're literally forced to.

#25 to #22 - anon id: 67764541

Reply+3

(08/20/2017)[-]

"donate to charity or turned into animal feed" it'd be the charity that gets sued.

#28 to #22 - anon id: b9dd5845

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

The stupid thing about americans is that they think when food hits the best before date that it's not eatable. But it literally says BEST BEFORE, it's not off yet, it was just better before.

#29 to #28 - anon id: 67764541

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

the best before date is the length of time that the producer can ensure a certain level of quality, provided the foodstuff is taken proper care of. it's also when the supermarket throws i away because it may have spoiled or will spoil soon after it is sold. it's about what level of safety a supermarket can legally sell to a customer. if they sell an object after its best before date and the customer gets sick then the supermarket may be legally culpable, whereas before it would be the producer of the foodstuff.

#31 to #28 - gamestumps

Reply-2

(08/20/2017)[-]

The stupid part about Canadians is that they don't understand how food spoils and what a health risk is. Or is that just you? I bet you're from Quebec

#33 to #31 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

No he gets it better than you do m8

#35 to #33 - gamestumps

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Food doesn't spoil at the exact same time every time. There's a chance that food spoils before a sell by date as well even if it's rare. Microorganisms are everywhere. It's impossible to guarantee when a food product will spoil, especially produce, and it's especially risky after a sell by or best by date.

The older food is, the more risky it is to eat. This should be obvious.

#37 to #35 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

which is why the best by date will be arbitrarily set to a week before it actually spoils

#40 to #37 - anon id: 5a6fc1b9

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Have you actually taken time to look at and eat food that is after it's ''best buy'' date. If it's properly handled and stored products can last a while. Take milk for example, it's usually dated to ''go bad'' around 2-3 weeks after it's put in the gallon/pint/whatever containers. But it can still be good up to a week after that date with no funky smells, taste, or curdling.

I've had deer meat that I've butchered myself last for around an entire year in my freezer with no freezer burn or funky tastes because I packaged and stored it right. Because following your logic, you're implying bottled water actually does expire.

#51 to #40 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Thats...thats what I said.

#39 to #37 - gamestumps

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Yes, every single piece of food is properly inspected and tested to ensure that it will spoil a week after the sell by date and no sooner by performing expensive chemical scans and mycology tests that would probably cost twice as much as what's charged for the actual product. It's definitely not based on simple statistical analysis and there are no such thing as outliers which become a more prominent risk-factor the longer it takes to use the product.

#50 to #39 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

You're yelling at people for not knowing about how the states handles its food, yet you also apparently think that there isnt some sort of quality control process, perhaps by some sort of administration which handles food and drug quality, which would require companies to do precisely what youre describing.

#56 to #50 - gamestumps

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

One stray bit of a bacteria or virus can turn food from harmless into a health hazard very quickly.

Everybody knows that chicken commonly has salmonella and therefore can't be left alone too long. But things like Listeria are very common as well on many different food items, and it's never possible to catch 100% of it, so it's best to consume things before they pass any form of safe date.

#53 to #50 - gamestumps

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

All I'm saying is that there's no way to guarantee that food won't spoil, and food becomes more risky to consume the longer it's left alone and not eaten. This should be obvious.

Yet I'm the one being inflammatory when the Canuck leads with "The stupid thing about americans is..." and I simply respond sarcastically in turn.

#41 to #22 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Except now that the government is forcing them to do it, the grocery store has zero liability.

#55 to #41 - cutiepyro

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

oops, i accidentally put cyanide in this can

#63 to #55 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Cyanide is not a foodstuff, so you would be shipping something not meant to be shipped.

#65 to #63 - cutiepyro

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

isn't it in rhubark and apple seeds?

#66 to #65 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

It is but you, at no point, would ever extract it, within the grocery store.
It would be like selling bottles of whiskey without a liquor license because cooking extracts contain alcohol.

#68 to #66 - cutiepyro

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

do you think that's illegal in the middle east?

#69 to #68 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Probably, since selling any liquor will get you lynched by the muzzies.

#42 to #41 - gamestumps

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

You'd be surprised at how contradictory and screwy laws can be. I don't know about French law, but especially here in the States there are plenty of instances where Government regulations force companies into a situation where they have to violate a different regulation or general moral rule. Unintended consequences.

#43 to #42 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

If a building is condemned and the state forces the city to allow homeless into it for shelter, and the building collapses on top of them, then if anything it would be on the state.
Same goes for a countries government forcing a company to give away refuse.
If someone gets sick, it would be on the government, not the company.
Any fines would be billed straight to the government.

#46 to #43 - gamestumps

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

While that would make sense, the cynic in me says that it definitely wouldn't go down that way. At least initially. I feel like there's going to be a lot of unnecessary headache over this law given that most grocery stores already do stuff like this anyways.

#44 to #43 - anon id: 5a6fc1b9

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Government regs won't stop John Doe from suing the supermarket/charity directly if he gets food poisoning.

#45 to #44 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

A cease and desist will.
And if the lawsuit goes through, they send the bill straight to the judge for a faulty ruling. Or to the government. They fail to pay, they can start losing property and assets.

#47 to #45 - anon id: 5a6fc1b9

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

I like how you think the government will take responsibility or even care.

Cause in that scenario here's what would happen: Gov't implements law and supermarkets start giving away unsold and ''expired'' food to homeless and charities. John Doe gets his food from one of those charities, ends up with food poisoning. Sues charity. In return charity will sue supermarket. Supermarket does what you suggested and pushes the lawsuit up to the gov't. Gov't will just look at it and go ''Well why did you give them bad food and not check to see if it was safe for consumption? Should be common sense.''

#48 to #47 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Except that would result in no food past expiration date being given away, circumventing the point of the bill.
When a government pushes the hand of a company, they assume all risks associated with ignoring standards and practices.

#49 to #48 - anon id: 5a6fc1b9

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

That's right, they assume the risks. Doesn't mean they'll care about the risks. The federal government, for the most part, is untouchable. The closest you'd ever get to winning a lawsuit of any kind against them is if it's a civil rights violation on their part or worse. Otherwise something like a random person getting sick cause of their own federal law, gov't won't give a ****.

#27 - anon id: 67764541

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

I'm more interested in what they do with the rejects, some absurd percent of produce is thrown away because it doesn't look as nice as it should. perfectly find produce, just odd looking. I'd like to see that donated to charity or turned into animal feed.

#19 - anon id: d685e160

Reply-2

(08/20/2017)[-]

The IDEA may be good.

The EXECUTION is horrible.

Giving government a say on how private businesses run always turns out like Venezuela sooner or later.

#36 to #19 - trollmobile#247 on commentsRank#247

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

... you don't quite know how any society works, do you?

#20 - Spitfirex

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Most companies already do? i'm the grocery manager at everyone's favorite, Walmart. Every sell a big ass blue bin behind your local store? that is for compose. We reduced and compose what doesn't sell. Candy is either reduced or donated 30 days prior expiration. Dairy products are reduced 3 days prior to sell by or composed. Bakery products are reduced the day of expiration to sell or than composed. Frozen foods are reduced 10 days prior or than composed.

Any food that is returned is immediately claimed and composed/animal feed. i'm not trying to shill but i'm trying to bring to light, it already happens.

corporate.walmart.com/2016grr/enhanci...

#38 to #20 - slapmyhand

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

"muh against freedom"

this comment section doesn't know what it is talking about

They are literally arguing about freedom over throwing away massive amounts of edible stuff instead of donating it. What the ****.

Keep fighting the informative fight

#77 to #38 - Spitfirex

Reply0

(08/21/2017)[-]

Here's our policy on returns. I mean you have no clue on what happens. Everything returned is composed.

#75 to #38 - Spitfirex

Reply0

(08/21/2017)[-]

it's mostly due to a lack of experience A "government" is a social contract between everyone to benefit everyone. (doesn't mean i agree with everything they do, but this is not the time for that) if you're selling any merchandise to the public, you need standards and someone to uphold those standards.

Walmart is not an individual, and it's not entitled to the same personal freedoms as a person. There has to be standards to accommodate disable and elderly people. There are standards for maximum shelf height, aisle width and width between main alley feature. Cooler and freezers need to be within proper temperature ranges and merchandise has to be labeled. it has to have the correct price, unit of measurement, wic or ebt signage. Your entrance has to be clear of debris and safety hazards. your fire equipment has to be in working condition and fire escapes can not be blocked.

Having stores waste food, instead of recycling it, is completely stupid. I mean they can selling it to local farms and such. Where i work, this truck comes by every Tuesday to pick it up. Some goes legitimately 6 miles down the road to a pig farm.

#4 - anonasdaasdasd

Reply-2

(08/20/2017)[-]

Good idea, but goes against freedom if they're forced to do much.
If someone came and picked it up from the store, it wouldn't be much of a liability for them.

#6 to #4 - thelastcrusade#148 on commentsRank#148

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Yeah it's not charity if it's forced
I still like it but I can see why it's a pain
I remember a restaurant around here used to do that and someone got sick so they sued the place
I think that is why places won't do that.

#8 to #6 - anon id: 5235a49e

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Both of you have very good points. Maybe a tax on wasted food and a tax cut for donating it would at least appear to be less forced.

#15 to #4 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

I imagine the volunteer workers who feed the homeless go around and pick it up, like how Boy Scouts of America picks up food during the Scouting For Food drives.

#18 to #15 - madred

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Thats exactly what happens at the supermarket (sm) i live next to (the same in many other sm in germany, too).
Unfortunately for you its not as amazing, interesting or hilarious as you might think. Its a truck. At the loading bay. Thats it.

#32 - candlehawk

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

One the one hand, companies would usually just throw it out because it's easier and more profitable to not distribute the food, and the only thing that could cause companies to do these sorts of actions. On the other hand it's the government telling a private company what they must do with their property. I feel that while it is the role of government to provide incentives for companies to do things like this, but that's just it, incentives. Not demands. If it was like, a tax break based upon how much food, or something, sure.

#34 to #32 - arziben

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Usually the party that is receiving the produce is the one that comes to collect it.

#72 to #34 - candlehawk

Reply-1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Sure, but it's still the government telling a private company what they MUST do with their property. Like, they should be fully within their legal rights to throw it out, or give it away, or burn it, or compost it, or whatever so they want. Because it's their privately owned property. What is the legal distinction between a company dealing with leftover food and an individual and their property. Are we at risk of laws saying that if we let food go bad that we must pay a fine? Obviously that is ridiculous, but where is the line drawn, and what right does the government have telling citizens what they can do with their property, given it is not harming the rights of another citizen?

#73 to #72 - arziben

Reply0

(08/21/2017)[-]

So that's what goes in your minds. Damn, you guys are kind of ****** up.

I know you guys don't much like the word but most european countries have a socialist government. No no, not a communist one, a socialist one, where people have a say on how they're treated by companies and such. Which is why in France we don't have telecom ******* us over on our knees. Which is why we pay for 25 bucks unlimited internet 100Mbps including the unlimited phone subscription. Companies are greedy, which is normal, their main goal is profit after all. But greedy can lead to the kind of **** in the US where employees inside a Walmart are being paid less than the peddlers in the parking lot...

Sure, a lot of times unions abuse their powers, because in the end human beings can be real cunts, but I prefer our system of keeping the corporations in check rather than letting them impose a monopoly and crush any hope for anyone to ever see fair prices again.

Not saying your system is bad (even though it sounds like I am), just saying they all have pros and cons and I think not letting companies become all powerful money hungry entities is definitely a pro.

#74 to #73 - candlehawk

Reply-1

(08/21/2017)[-]

Yeah, like, there are legitimate arguments on both sides, just saying that the side with the most freedoms (inb4 muh freedoms meme) is allowed to have this argument for the longest period of time. I dunno, maybe I'm in the wrong equating "the freedoms of corporations" with "the freedoms of the individuals" because I am empathizing with the owners of companies as if I am the owner. It's really an interesting debate that needs to be had. It's unfortunate that most people try to talk in tribalistic terms when it comes to this stuff. We need to have a proper discussion, I wonder (and hope that it will) if this is ever a thing that will happen.

#21 - anon id: 11d9d72d

Reply-6

(08/20/2017)[-]

Bad. The government should never say what a business does, can do and can't do. The government should only observe.

#58 to #21 - anon id: e43e5479

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

You masturbate to Alix Jones, don't you?

First 2 Last

[ 77 comments ]

Add Comment