[Dylan16807]

Coming back later, I realized earlier I looked up the calories but I didn't compare them to anything else. So while tart cherries "only" have 50 calories per 100g, sweet cherries are up around 60, not very different. An apple also has about 50-60 per 100g. So does an orange.

Fruit isn't super dense in calories to begin with because it has so much water, but it's still a meaningful amount, and tart cherries are pretty standard among fruit.

[Alupis]

Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all.

Maybe just quit being needlessly pedantic? Every point you've attempted to raise in this thread has been entirely pointless and equally ridiculous.

[Dylan16807]

> Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all.

This applies to almost all fruit though. But saying people in need don't need any fruit would be a terrible stance. What gives?

[Alupis]

So we're moving goalposts? Where did I say people in need don't need any fruit?

People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries that are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions. Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

Which argument will you come up with next?

You've bounced all over the place in this thread. Just let it rest...

[Dylan16807]

> So we're moving goalposts? Where did I say people in need don't need any fruit?

You gave calories as a reason people don't need this fruit.

But that logic would apply to almost fruit.

So I said it would be bad to say people in need don't need fruit, while pointing out that contrast. I'm not accusing you of thinking that, I'm accusing you of using flawed logic.

> People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries

There's plenty of calories in a reasonable serving, and again that argument would apply to almost any fruit. It's like complaining about a single blueberry having too few calories.

> are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions.

They can cook with them. Lots of things are rarely eaten on their own and need to be processed, costing more ingredients and time than the pre-processed form. This includes flour!

> Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

This is true and has nothing to do with my point.

> Which argument will you come up with next?

If you bring up a new reason to imply that donating tart cherries is unreasonable (even though it does happen!), I might disagree with that reason. Otherwise I have had one single argument and it hasn't changed: Donating tart cherries is a good idea.

I don't know why you're so fixated on whether people eat something directly. That doesn't affect what all2 was saying or what voxl was saying or what anyone else has been saying, but you keep acting like it does.