Soxbadger

I dont judge anyone. If my best friend wants to drink 12 Mt Dew a day and eat out for every meal, that is on him. Ill do the right thing and show him the South Park episode where Mt Dew rips apart Cartman, but that is it.

I cant speak for generations, I can only speak with anecdotes about my life. When I was a kid we didnt throw food away "There are children starving in Africa" or "Waste not want not." When my dad was a child he didnt throw food away "There are starving children in Europe." Yet somehow we are both able to exert some semblance of self control. Whether that is ordering sensibly (do I really need a bowl of chili as a side for a 1/2 lb burger) or it is not eating all of the food in front of you (should I save this half of my food for later because its unnecessary for me to eat more.) I do not think that I am some sort of special human that has the ability to make decisions that normal people cant make. In fact I believe that I am just like other people in that I too make stupid decisions that are costly, may harm me physically, may cost me money. And that is ultimately the point. As long as we allow people to make choices, they are going to make bad ones. It doesnt matter the size of the drink or the fries, what matters is the mentality of the person. I truly believe that those who think that change is possible, can do it. And those who think that it is impossible or that there are some barriers, cant do it. This isnt about money either. There are plenty of people with more money than they can spend in a lifetime who cant change, because they dont believe they can.

I was actually going to post that id guess the next generation consoles are 500gb+. It wouldnt surprise me if 1tb was the middle and that the high end were 1.5-2.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) So change it to "purchase" and the point stands. Or change it from size to a particular product offered. I can't choose to by a McRib because McDonalds isn't selling it right now. My choices are constrained, I do not have complete and total agency to choose whichever item in the world I desire. But as far as portions go, there's a psychological effect at play. Even if you'd have been perfectly satisfied with a 12oz drink, you're pretty damn likely to drink all 20oz if that's the standard size. It's just our physiology. All of these arguments so are irrelevant that I dont even know where to begin. You arent even arguing ease of access in the US versus different countries, you are arguing US v US, for some unknown reason. Secondly, its our physiology? What type of cop out is that. Its like saying if I get paid $100, Ill immediately spend it, so I should only get $20 because I cant control myself. What type of backwards logic is that. If you do not have the self control to stop eating, drinking or doing anything, than it is not going to matter what rules we make, you will simply find another way to lose control. At some point people need to be the ones who say "Im not hungry anymore, Im going to throw this away."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) I said that choices are constrained by what's available. I used the sizes of sodas offered at fast food restaurants over time as an easy example because this was about food at one point. You can apply this to virtually anything; I can't choose something that I can't buy. If no grocery store around me carries a certain product, I'm pretty much SOL. I'm forced to choose from a smaller or different set of options. And I think what people are arguing is that most people in the US have as good or better access to things like grocery stores etc, and probably have as much or more ability to choose different cheap products. Which is why this makes no sense arguing about the US life expectancy rate. The US life expectancy rate is lower due to many reasons, but Im pretty sure "not having easy access to food" is not one of them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:42 PM) I can't drink a 64Oz McDonalds soda if they don't sell 64Oz sodas. I can't drink a 7Oz soda if they don't sell 7Oz sodas. I really, really don't understand why this was controversial at all. Those arent really true statements. If they sell 64 oz cokes, I can drink every 1 oz, I can drink 64 oz, so I can drink 7 oz if I want to. If they sell 7 oz cokes and I want to drink 64 oz, I can buy 10 7 oz cokes. Just because I bought 12 donuts, doesnt mean I have to eat 12 donuts as soon as I get home.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) Depends what your billable rate is, my friend. Someone sure must have annoyed you today. Because you are hilariously making similar points to mine, yet you keep backhandedly attacking me. What gives? Me: Where I am going with this is that the premise about half of these arguments are hilariously faulty. People keep claiming that its food deserts, or not enough money, or not enough time. None of that is the reason why Americans are dieing faster. The reason Americans die faster is that we make stupid decisions that cost us years off our lives. Whether it be eating habits, drug habits, risky behavior, it all adds up to the fact that Americans die quicker than counter parts. If people want to eat healthy, get in shape, there are countless opportunities in the United States. But at a certain point, there is just nothing you can do. There are people who are extremely obese, extremely unhealthy, who simply dont care, and quite frankly you arent going to convince me I should start caring. The same goes for the people who still smoke cigarettes. There is no justification, but if they want to die faster, thats on them. I am not going to sit up at night worry that other people in the US may die faster. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You: Honestly, if you do not understand how, or you do not know if you will be able to provide basic nutrition to your offspring, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE THEM. And if you do anyways, THEY WILL PROBABLY NOT BE PARTICULARLY HEALTHY OR BE IN A GREAT POSITION TO OVERCOME THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU HAVE PUT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. I fall on the liberal side of things on many, many issues. But this ultra-left nonsense which ultimately places human beings in a position of taking absolutely no responsibility for themselves or their offspring and blaming EVERYTHING on "the world" or the "food desert" or whatever other pathetic liberal constructs you want to come up with is more of an insult to these people than the one you accuse me of levying. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you just upset that I used numbers that were divisible by 100? $100 per hour, $100,000? Because I just was using simple numbers so that the math was easy.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) It is a moral failing to be lazy and get fat as f*** and eat s*** food just because it tastes good and is easier. Hey now, for a long part of history being fat was considered a sign of wealth. In France they call Homer a gourmand. Thankfully for me skinny is in these days.

I blame Bill Clinton. He showed me that smoking weed and eating mcdonalds were what presidents do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) some people have said food deserts might be an issue while also posting an article about research downplaying food deserts. somehow this has morphed into people saying that food deserts absolve all responsibility. it's weird. What responsibility do I have? Most food is labeled. Most people can read. If they want to find out what is good or bad, the library has free nutritional books. We all make choices, some of us take responsibility for our bad choices and admit that there is no one to blame but ourselves. Other people find a million reasons to make up excuses for why their bad choices somehow arent their fault. That was the part Shack couldnt grasp. I wasnt mentioning my habits to brag, I was mentioning them to show that at the end of the day, its my fault if I die early. And quite frankly, none of you should have to worry about that. Its on me. You keep arguing from the premise people cant change without some outside force helping them. I am arguing from the premise that people can change, they just dont want to.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) And I didn't ask you to live life the way I do. This is a thread about how shockingly low the life expectancy is in America presently. You've come in here and constantly told us all how you wish to die at 50 and that you enjoy 'living in the fast lane." We're happy for you. No idea where you are even going with this. Where I am going with this is that the premise about half of these arguments are hilariously faulty. People keep claiming that its food deserts, or not enough money, or not enough time. None of that is the reason why Americans are dieing faster. The reason Americans die faster is that we make stupid decisions that cost us years off our lives. Whether it be eating habits, drug habits, risky behavior, it all adds up to the fact that Americans die quicker than counter parts. Through all of this muck, not one person have given a quantifiable answer of why we should care that other people in America may or may not make good decisions. Each person is unique. Each situation is unique. If people want to eat healthy, get in shape, there are countless opportunities in the United States. But at a certain point, there is just nothing you can do. There are people who are extremely obese, extremely unhealthy, who simply dont care, and quite frankly you arent going to convince me I should start caring. The same goes for the people who still smoke cigarettes. There is no justification, but if they want to die faster, thats on them. I am not going to sit up at night worry that other people in the US may die faster. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:21 PM) Yes, you can afford it, but you aren't going to pay an extra $1 per lb extra or whatever because you aren't going to cook for yourself but rather bill people money and watch Netflix and have Pizza Hut or Chinese food or whatever arrive at the door. Your personal habits don't relate to 99.9999% of the world out there, and you are stubborn. People feeding their families McDonald's are f***ing insane. I eat at home every night. I go out every day at lunch. The reason I eat at home is because I can control what I am eating. But I also recognize that there is an inherent cost in me making that food, that many people in this thread were not accounting for. I guess I just wanted to knock out the economic argument because its kind of boring. It can be argued its cheaper to eat out, it can be argued its cheaper to make food at home. But neither of those things in and of themselves cause people to die quicker. Which is really what this article was about, people in the US dieing quicker. And the answer is because we are allowed to do stupid things. Which I personally prefer. So if people were wondering where I was going, I guess its that Im defending the US, and saying that life expectancy is kind of a nonsense stat. I actually think there is some science to back that. Id have to do research (and Im lazy so Im not going to at the moment), but I believe that the way that infant mortality is calculated some how adversely effects the US because the US has more premis etc that live for X amount of time, so they are counted in that stat. Whereas if we had worse medicine they would die before being counted as alive.) Okay I lied, here is an article from what seems to be a person who generally would disagree with me (uses liberal in a negative connotation) and they come to a similar conclusion. So either a) Im becoming my own enemy or b) there has to be some truth to it. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html If you dont want to read the whole thing, here is the gist:

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:02 PM) The majority of you guys are being absolutely f***tarded right now. Badger, we don't care how many drugs you've taken or currently subject your ($100/hr) mind to. Enough of this Bill Maher I want to brag about how much weed I smoke. And seriously, if you view every hour of your day as a potential billable hour lost, come talk to me when you're 70 and you can't hardly walk and you have 6 months to live and won't see your granddaughter get married and see how much those hours are worth then because you didn't want to lose a billable hour making a reasonable dinner. Funny that you throw insults but you failed to even understand the basic concept of my argument. To make it simpler. Free time > work time And maybe Ill die at 70, maybe Ill die at 100, maybe Ill die tomorrow. I dont have enough time in the day to pass judgment about how other people want to live there life. If you can live off $3 bell pepper slices, good for you. Thats not how I live, that is not how I want to live, and quite frankly it doesnt matter whether my life expectancy is 20, 27 or 50000, Id rather live my life they way I wanted. Which goes back to the stupidity of this entire thread/article. As Americans we have the freedom to eat healthy or not eat healthy. We make our choices, we live with them. The point you seemingly are missing is that people keep arguing about money, as if having money will automatically cause you to make good decisions. Having money, not having money, its still about the person and their level of responsibility. No idea where you are even going with this.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) So if a friend invites you to go see a movie, you make a calculation in your head whether or not that particular movie will give you around $200 worth of enjoyment? It makes no economic sense for you. I barely ever go to movies (I have netflix etc, makes no sense to spend $20 to see 1 movie when I can spend $20 for unlimited monthly movies). But once again you are not understanding how the apportionment of time works. Free time is more valuable than work time. Therefore in every instance doing something that I enjoy is more valuable than work. I only work so that I can have free time. Thus if there is ever something I want to do, it always trumps work. Making food, cleaning, etc falls into "work time". It is not "free time" because I am doing something I dont want to do. Therefore if I am going to do something I dont want to do ie "work time" I have multiple work options. One of those options includes me gaining more money. If cooking and working are equal, then it makes more sense to work 30 minutes (+$50) as opposed to cooking 30 minutes (+$20). Thus every time I cook for 30 minutes where I could have been working 30 minutes I lose $30. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) So there's no reason to get 96/4 over 80/20 was my point. I don't worry about that s*** with Boca crumbles, of course. Except for the added extra step. Id rather just pay the $1 per lb extra or whatever the cost is.

Free time is something. And therefore it has a tangible value. Value is generally subjective, which is why this entire thread and article are nonsense. It does not even get into the argument of would you rather live 50 amazing years or 100 years of suck.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:20 PM) Do you really view every hour of your day in this manner? If you watch an hour of tv, do you see it as $100 lost? And it's cool for you if you have a job where you make $100/hour (and can apparently work unlimited hours if you choose to), but that's simply not the case for the vast, vast majority of people. I actually do view my entire day that way. My day is apportioned by what I have to do. X hours sleeping, Y hours working, Z hours traveling to work, Q hours having fun. I work so that I can watch as many hours of tv, post on the internet or do whatever I want to with my time. I dont work so I can go home, pretend im on top chef, then pretend on im on kitchen nightmares, so I can save $5 a day. It just makes no economic sense, and this is from someone who is considered pretty miserly (for lunch I will walk to a McDonalds to buy a drink to save $1, but that is because I am on lunch and already being paid for that time so its entirely profit).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:13 PM) When you're sitting on your ass at home at night arguing on Soxtalk? I don't think so. Plus, cooking is/can be an enjoyable activity. You mean my free time? Cooking is annoying. It means that I have to use my entire kitchen. It means that I have to clean dishes. I have to fight cats as they try and eat the food. Its really not enjoyable. When I decide to finish working for the day, I dont like to come home and work more. Its the same reason why people pay a house cleaner or any other service industry. Its called opportunity cost. QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) Are you serious? 30 minutes of your time is worth over $50? Sounds like you are splitting hairs. See opportunity cost. 3 examples. Example 1: I am in my apartment billing clients and being paid. I earn $100 an hour. I order food it takes 1minute, it costs $20. Example 2: I am in my apartment cooking food, cleaning dishes. I earn $0 an hour. But food cost only $5 to buy. Example 3: I am in my apartment posting on Soxtalk. I earn $0 an hour. In my opinion the enjoyment of screwing around is immeasurable. None of this really matters. Because why exactly do I care when other people die.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) So feeding a family McDonald's at $20/visit (assuming only one meal per person family of four) is cheaper than venturing into the produce section of a grocery store? GMAFB. $20 at mcdonalds is probably getting you 500-1000 calories per person. Thats a ton of food. The problem is that those people then go and eat more food through out the day, ending up in the 3k calorie range. If they actually just ate fast food reasonably it probably wouldnt even be a problem. Its just some people have either no understanding or no care about how burning calories work and the actual amounts you need to survive. A cheeseburger is 300 calories. That means for less than $10 you can get 2k calories.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:44 PM) (not that taco bell would be less than 2 bucks once you account for the food and travel). At the end of the day in 99% of cases making your own food and having left overs is going to be cheaper than getting something pre-made or going out to eat. QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:46 PM) plus maybe 40 minutes' effort. I think we are just doing different math. 40 minutes of time, or even 30 minutes of my time is worth over $50. That means for me to make a meal that takes 30 minutes costs $50 (time I could have been working instead of making food.) Thus there is no way it is ever cheaper for me to make my own food, as opposed to buying it on the way home (5 minutes). The only reason I make food is because it is healthier and I can control what I am being served. Now if you are just saying that the food (by itself no prep etc) costs cheaper at a store, that would probably be close, but it would depend on the way the argument was styled (if it was calorie per $, you still may get more bang for fast food.) But you cant just discount the prep time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) I can choose to eat elsewhere. I can choose to drink something else. I can choose to only drink part of the soda, but our brains aren't wired well for that. What I can't choose is to get a 7oz soda to enjoy one but also make sure I only drink 7oz. The default is going to be 24-32oz, and moving the default higher and higher will lead to more people drinking more soda. Im not even sure why you arent using the better argument. At McDonalds every size drink is $1. It is economically sound to always buy the biggest drink if it is the same price as the smallest drink. Or even further McDonalds drinks are cheaper than every other drink, therefore you can save almost a $1 by buying a large McDonalds coke as compared to a regular Chipotle.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) No way. Eating vegetables and fruits and lean meats (healthy food) is insanely inexpensive. When we lived in the city my wife and I would go to one of those all produce stores and load up a cart full of all kinds of things and it would be under 25 bucks. You're talking a weeks worth of meals for that much. Conversely you go to Sams or Costco and buy prepared meals and you walk out the door with a 300 dollar charge. It comes down to choice. I don't excuse poor people with supposed limited access to food from making those poor choices. Their food is paid for. They gotta go get their WIC or LINK food from a real grocery store anyway. They CHOOSE to be lazy and buy the processed stuff. That just isnt true. Ive done the math with making tacos. If you buy 1) lean ground beef, 2) flour tortilla and 3) cheese. The price is at minimum 2 dollars per serving, which is not break even with fast food as you also have to include opportunity costs, time, etc. Now when you buy food there is going to be some spoilage, where as if you go to Taco Bell, you dont lose anything to spoilage. I bought some apples yesterday at Jewel, 4 apples, $4. Milk is $3. Like I said, show me some actual numbers. Not just "I went to the store one time and bought a cart of food for under $25." I dont even care about this stupid argument. We all make our choices. If I die early it wont be because I ate fast food or ate healthy, worked out didnt work out, it will be due to taking in excess of $100,000 worth of drugs.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) I didn't say every day. It's not hard to make sandwiches with buffalo sauce, or tacos with healthy ingredients, or to grab a .99 cent can of black beans and make burgers out of them. A 3 pack of romaine hearts is $2. Eggs are dirt cheap. One onion can be used in meals for multiple days. People just have to venture into the produce area instead of grabbing bags of processed chips and pre-packed expensive meals. Take 15 minutes one day and plan out the week's meals. It's not hard at all. But going to the drive through or ordering dinner is SO MUCH EASIER. People who say they don't have time to eat healthy or can't afford it are f***ing idiots. Same with working out - people choose what they do, and they choose to order in food and watch that extra episode of whatever. I don't want to hear about people with kids, either, because you can exercise at home without any equipment and get your sweat on quite easily. Its more expensive to eat healthy food than junk food. That is just simple math. And part of the higher mortality rates is that American's have bad habits like drinking, drugs, sex and rock & roll. Rich people, poor people, everyone can die early in the US. So what. Not sure why I care.

Id rather be free and die young. Im pretty sure if I die early there wont be many questions about whose fault it was.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) Agreed. I think at least one of Iowa/Wisconsin make it in, maybe both. Wisconsin hasnt helped themselves this year. They may get in because of their tournament streak, but they are going to have to win some tough games, that so far they have not shown any ability to do.

I think Im somehow getting the new netflixhd streaming

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 08:00 PM) I just think you'll have a problem if a 7-5 team wins, while there is a 10-2 team sitting in the wings that didn't make it to the CCG, especially if they played and the 10-2 team waxed the 7-5 team. It goes to not only unbalanced schedules, but the difficulties of balanced divisions within conferences as we are seeing in the BiG. The quality of teams will change over time and there will always be issues with inequities like that with larger conferences. Though one way would be to go to four 20-team conferences and have teams play 9 division games only and none from the opposing division (essentially 8, 10-team conferences tied together in pairs. Not sure that's going to happen though. It will be up to the conferences to figure out how they want to pick the teams for the CCG. I think conferences will move to 16 teams and potentially could do 10 conference games (7 division + 3 out of division). That would ensure almost every team plays 1 time in 2 years, and while there is always the chance of a 6-6 team somehow being the top of its division, there is just (imo) no better or simpler solution. It takes out all rankings and subjectivity, you have to win games.