StrangeSox

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) I never said it makes them bad people - just lazy. lazy = lazy When is calling someone lazy something other than an insult?

I'm going to take the last part first and this is going to be a tangent from diet or health or w/e Thanks for the straw-man, but that's not actually the "liberal" position and it certainly isn't mine! But look at this: QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) Seriously? I am quite sympathetic of the plight of those less-fortunate than I am. However, pulling up websites which "really hit home" about "the hard reality" of actually being poor do not make the decisions that have caused many people in poverty to be where they are today or continue to stay less irresponsible or ignorant. It doesn't make their problems magically go away, either. 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. Look at that last sentence, then step it back a generation. That is exactly, exactly what I'm saying here. Growing up in poverty gives any number of huge disadvantages. One of the strongest lines from the link, to me, was "Being poor is having to live with choices you didn’t know you made when you were 14 years old." So these people you're telling are irresponsible and ignorant today? Maybe lazy, too? Aside from a whole lot of people in poverty actually busting their ass every day literally just to survive the next month, week or day, these are the same people you're talking about in all caps above. The people who weren't in a great position from the start, the people with a whole hell of a lot less room for error than you or I had. People who grew up around more crime and terrible schools. People that didn't grow up in a household that valued education, people that didn't grow up knowing anyone that successfully navigated the maze that student loans and college applications can be. People who worked a decent job earning a living, but got sick, missed work, lost their job, lost their car and lost their place to live. People, good people, no different from any of us here, who struggle and sacrifice probably more than a lot of us ever have, maybe ever will. People who make some bad choices, just like we do. People who aren't perfect, are lazy sometimes, are ignorant or irresponsible other times, just like us. Poverty is a lot of things, but it isn't a moral failing, something inflicted on people for being bad or worse than we are.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:25 PM) This. What is cringe-worthy about saying that culture is a thing that influences people? Do you think you'd be the same person making the exact same choices if you'd been raised in Korea?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) And how does that equate to "all people in poverty are lazy and ignorant"? The part where you say if someone can't find produce or is too lazy that they shouldn't have gotten multiple women pregnant? It's pretty insulting and completely dismissive of the actual, real life challenges and choices people in poverty face. It's callous and cruel.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:19 PM) You can leave out the cheap part. It's much easier to eat unhealthy period. People are lazy, but the excuses I'm reading are all bulls***. Yeah, it's generally easier to eat unhealthy food than to eat healthy food. A thing being easier than another thing means that more people will choose the easier thing. That doesn't necessarily make them bad people.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) And that is really what I posted. yes, this is literally what you said: go read this instead: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:11 PM) I literally cringed reading this. This is that bulls*** liberal "everyone is a stupid moron that can't think for themselves so we need to protect them" mentality. No, it's not. It's recognizing that there's this thing called "culture" and that it influences people. edit: Ok I can see how that can sound paternalistic. I did not mean that "make [...]" or "shift the culture" should come from some top-down government organization or something.

Also f*** this bulls*** of assuming anyone in poverty is "knocking up 3 different women with 2 kids each" and they're all lazy, irresponsible people.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:02 PM) Food is cheaper and more abundant now than at any time in human history. The reason the vast, vast majority of people in this country eat like s*** is because they are ignorant, lazy, undisciplined and irresponsible. Or (or maybe additionally) because s*** food is widely and easily available pretty much everywhere you go, is relatively cheap, tastes good (lots of sugars and salts) and is constantly advertised and reinforced. Moralizing the choices like that generally really does not help if you're looking for cultural changes. People tend to resent being told they're dumb, lazy assholes.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) No, you didn't say it was impossible, but you're acting like the choices are extremely limited. If you choose to get a 32oz coke instead of water, you can't blame the 32oz coke option. No, I'm not. I completely reject that I'm acting like they're "extremely" limited. That's editorializing that you've thrown in. I used the soft drink chart to illustrate the very simple concept that what choices you make are limited by external factors, some of which are beyond your control. You can't choose to buy something if its not for sale, and that goes for a lot more than soft drinks at restaurants. I could probably eat healthier than I do if I shopped at Whole Foods regularly, but there isn't one near me. Instead, I can choose from what's offered at the stores around me. That's probably true, though I might change it to healthier before agreeing to it. But if we have a culture (social, advertising, marketing, etc.) that encourages you to eat garbage or not be active, that's going to influence you. That can be counteracted by things like the Lets Move or Play 60 or other positive campaigns. It's naive to ignore the role society plays in our own daily choices. Make those healthy, active choices easier to make for more people, shift the culture to stop buying garbage foods and to be more active, etc. It all plays a part.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:57 PM) This is how I cook with any ground beef. you can also stretch it out by adding bread crumbs. but if you're on a tight budget and barely able to put food on the table, cooking off that fat and rinsing it down the drain is throwing nutrition away.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) The better option requires more effort? That's true for almost everything in life. The opportunity costs and the extra effort required aren't the same for every person. It's easy for me to choose to go to the grocery store and prepare healthy meals because I have both the time and money to do so. When I'm working 60 hours a week, all of a sudden the home-cooked meals turn to simple processed pasta or get replaced all together with fast food or eating out.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:47 PM) If you want to eat healthy and cheaply, you can find time. Spent some time on the weekend making a large amount of food to be saved and eaten during the week. You can't tell me the only alternative is a double quarter pounder and a 64 oz slurpee. I've never said that it is impossible to find time or eat healthier, probably for the majority of people and across the class spectrum. I said that what choices you can make and ultimately choose are influenced, pressured and constrained by outside forces to various extents. I can't buy what isn't offered for sale, I can't buy what I can't afford, and whatever I do choose to buy is going to be influenced by a whole host of external factors.

"free time" is a luxury

It was a settlement with the FCC http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57485518-...ans-to-you-faq/

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) Anyone can figure out how to make a meal. Go to the library and read a book, use the internet from the library, there are many options. The parent raising 3 kids can go for a walk. If health is the issue, they can find the time. Time is a factor as well. Going to the library takes time, learning how to cook takes time, getting the necessary cooking utensils and tools takes time and money. The parent raising three kids by themselves might struggle to find time to go to the store, learn to cook, raise their kids, work, exercise, etc. etc. It's a hell of a lot easier for some people to make the 'right' choices than it is for others is all I'm saying. Think about what advantages you might enjoy and might take for granted before you cast a moral judgement that someone's being lazy, dumb, irresponsible etc.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:46 PM) Beef and cheese tacos aren't exactly healthy. 1 lb of chicken breast: $2 1 lb of potatoes: $1 1 head of cauliflower: $3 seasonings/other: $1 water: $squat Family of four fed a good, healthy meal for $7 plus maybe 40 minutes' effort. forty minutes of time (plus cleanup?) might be a luxury for someone workings two jobs or long hours, whether it's just to get by or because they're trying to make partner at the firm.

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. Feeding a family of four off the dollar menu might be. Access to the produce section of a grocery store might not be something that's readily available. That's the whole premise behind a "food desert."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:49 PM) Pretty sure at sams/costco it's even less than that. I know the package is like 13.99 and i'm sure it's 8-10 lbs of chicken. ah, the flash-frozen box of Tyson or whatever is probably that cheap.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:46 PM) You're already saying people don't have a choice after they've made the choice of eating at these places. I go to McDonalds all the time for lunch and I don't buy a drink. I bring the food back to my office and have water. I'm not forced to drink soda at all, let alone a 32 oz cup of soda. I never said that they didn't have a choice. I said that your choice is constrained by what's offered, and that it's important to look at what's offered.

where are you getting chicken breasts for $2/pound? I want in.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) With cheese and fried chicken, the best kind of salads for health. Five years ago, they didn't have salads at all. A quick salad when on the road or running out to grab something for lunch at the office wasn't an offered choice.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) I wonder if part of it is because medical costs are so expensive. I went without insurance for many years simply because I couldn't afford it. Yeah, I mentioned earlier that I'd bet on the class divide in life expectancy being due to health care access and not diets. Preventable or easily treatable diseases and ailments go untreated or undiagnosed for longer.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Music/violin-011.gif Who are you playing that violin for? It's a point about what options are available to people and can be expanded to a broader point about what options are marketed, advertised and reinforced socially. If you want to talk about public health and public choice you're going to have to look at broad social factors like that.

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.