Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to FAQFixer
Re: What Credibility?
Or they didn't "choose" to have kids. Many kids come to be, without an educated choice. |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | reply to factchecker
Sorry, I meant there's a link as in there's a connection, poor word choice on my part.
No, I was arguing whether or not people need to eat poorly just because they are poor.
But yes, agreed, let's let it go. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to cdigioia
said by cdigioia  :The other two articles link fast food to obesity (no, really, there's a link??  ) Look through the Google result linked to.. Right there for your amusement.
You still haven't proven that people need to eat fast food to being with. Proving that people NEED to eat fast food and that impoverished people DO eat fast food are two different things. Thus far you have asked for the later and that is the only one I will prove. The former is outside of my area of expertise (I'm not a nutritionist).
I'm done. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing when everything you need to _begin_ doing your own research on this issue on your own time has been presented to you. I had to trudge my way through journals and articles (many of which you probably won't find on the internet freely available) on my own, I've given you more than I had to start. |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | reply to factcheckerA
The other two articles link fast food to obesity (no, really, there's a link?? )
You still haven't proven that people need to eat fast food to being with. |
|
factcheckerA
@cox.net | reply to cdigioia
Apparently you ONLY read the CNN report and not the others... Read the other links and you will find discussion of studies and numbers.
I gave you the place to start. You do the rest of the work. |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
 ·Korea Telecom
| reply to FactChecker
|
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :Bump out the 100/100 (ipv6 compatible) quick as they can, so that others will have to re-think thier deployments seriously. Get USF priority re-allocated to deployment in rural areas, so its not such a burden on this poor company. I'd say 30/5, 20/5 and 20/20 is a pretty good start. Don't forget that without Verizon FiOS, there would be NO competition in the broadband world... Cable VS DSL was not really "competition." FIOS is FORCING cable companies to rethink their strategies. You just can't offer 100/100... That would require a massive restructuring of the backbones. Right now, Verizon is handling FiOS bandwidth quite well and they're expanding bandwidth occasionally... I'd say within 5 years or less we'll be at 100/100. There is really no "need" for 100/100 right now outside of warez... I am a HEAVY user and I only need 20/5 to get most of my work done, 20/20 is overkill for me.
-Tzale |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to cdigioia
Read my later post. It addresses your issues.
As for your assertion that poor people only work under 40 hours per week... Poorer people are more likely to hold multiple jobs, demonstrated fact.
As for you not being "convinced", that does not change the data. You sound like you certainly have seen enough poverty around you, like most Americans, but seeing it and looking into it and researching its causes, problems and issues is a different thing. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to marigolds
I'm sure the judge would call you on that one. Are you meaning to tell me you know how my sister thinks when neither of us even know the question that was asked?
Regardless, this didn't stop the CBS morning news from using the statistic as a sensational sound bite to claim "health care crisis".
It's no different with broadband deployment. We have no idea if the countries with which we compare ourselves are using figures that make sense to compare. Nevertheless, we're ranked, what, 15th? This smells like NCAA BCS rankings. (And yes, I'm from Missouri and I might be a bit bitter about the Cotton Bowl thing but plenty still agree the BCS rankings are, at best, like reading tea leaves...) |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | reply to marigolds
OK, I was in a sub-discussion though. I really long sub-discussion.
Though perhaps I was only feeding the off-topic beast  |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to cdigioia
said by cdigioia :Homeless essentially? I did not mean those who would starve without assistance. I am arguing those who can afford enough calories can also afford enough nutrition. This was to refute the claim that just because the poor in the US tend to be more overweight, doesn't mean anything due to good nutrition (as opposed to just sufficient calories) being too expensive. Right, but the initial discussion was about the impacts of removing welfare supports.
Those who can afford enough calories on their own don't need welfare supports and are not part of "the poor" for the purpose of this discussion.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to rradina
said by rradina :These folks are making a life choice and unless you are a total socialist who wants the government running our lives from every angle, we should leave this alone. First, not even close to a socialist and that line of dicussion would drive us even further off course.
Secondly, regarding the choices made... While there are healthier foods available, they are typically less filling than their artery clogging menu neighbors. The poor don't make food choices the same way that people like myself, and probably you, who make a really good living would. Their choices are based on what will fill them up the most effectively and unfortunately, that tends to be those massive value meals.
I'm throwing a red flag. If McDonald's is in play, even Bill Clinton, messiah of all liberals, thought it was good food. And what are Bill Clinton's credentials as a health adviser? None. The facts are that HEALTH CARE providers and physicians would disagree with that statement almost entirely across the board.
Plus, all of the fast food restaurants have healthier alternatives. You can get a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried. You can get yogurt, cereal and fruit instead of eggs and bacon. You can get salads instead of hamburgers. Good idea, but it doesn't work. Check out the calories on some of that "healthier" foods. Some of it would be healthy if say, you or I made it, but the fact is that it isn't nearly as healthy as you would think when it comes from the fast food joints.
Anyway, probably a good place to stop the discussion... Way off topic now. |
|
FactChecker
@cox.net
| reply to cdigioia
said by cdigioia :I have not recently researched statistics to back this up though - do you have any for your viewpoint? Or any reasoning at all outside of pathos? Seriously, stop being a whiny sympathizer. Sympathy is near useless if one doesn't understand the situation. I've traveled a bit of the world, and seen the statistics we have it easy here compared to the developing world. edit: Haha, we appear to have gotten slightly off topic :P Yeah, a wee bit off topic.
I'm curious as to how you can make such an assertion as yours when you simultaneously claim you have no facts to back it up...
There are numerous articles, some even in the normal press, that back the conclusion of cheap, fast food (junk food, McD's, Burger King, etc.) and working as the cause...
See below for just a few:
»www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fit···dex.html
»www.childrenshospital.org/newsro···l42.html
»www.charlestonbusiness.com/pub/1···5-1.html
or directly to the Google results:
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=po···G=Search
You also need to check out:
Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser
The MacDonaldization of Society, Ritzer |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
| reply to marigolds
Homeless essentially?
I did not mean those who would starve without assistance. I am arguing those who can afford enough calories can also afford enough nutrition. This was to refute the claim that just because the poor in the US tend to be more overweight, doesn't mean anything due to good nutrition (as opposed to just sufficient calories) being too expensive. |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
| reply to factchecker
Not even close to better for me. If you like, you can read my later post where I address things in more detail, but as a synopsis.
Poor people work more?
I disagree, hourly workers tend to stay under 40 hours a week. Salaried jobs (which tend to be held by the better educated) have no overtime pay. I've seen this myself in my immediate family (hourly), and friends (both hourly and salaried). Not to mention it's intuitive.
Fast food is cheap
No it's not, read my later post about putting myself through college. Pasta is cheap, bananas are cheap, milk is cheap. a $6 meal at Burger King is not. From personal experience working at McDonalds in high school, the poorest people didn't go for the dollar menu as much as the meals. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to cdigioia
said by cdigioia :Poorer education and/or less ability to delay gratification. Not even close and a common stereotype and misconception...
It comes more from necessity than anything. Poorer people have to problems - they need to work more to make the same amount of money as others and their ability to purchase food is dictated by the amount of money they have.
In order to work more, expedience is required when getting food, eating, etc., meaning far less time to shop, cook, etc. So, food that is fact and cheap becomes the preferred choice.
What is fast and cheap - bingo, fast food.
Poorer people are far more likely to consume fast food than people with better incomes, etc. They are not eating significantly more than their peers who have better incomes, rather, the large amounts of fats and empty calories are what is getting to them.
That better for you ? |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to cdigioia
You're thinking of the working poor, not those of poverty level who would have issue affording most of the things on that list (in particular, milk, tuna, eggs and chicken) without government subsidy. Hence why malnutrition is the big issue. Those people never go to McDonald's (they don't take WIC vouchers). |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :said by pnh102 :Hello? If you are obese, then there is a 99.999999999999999% chance you are not starving. You have missed the point and further illustrated a lack of knowledge on the topic of why under-priviledged people have a higher incidence of obesity. When you have a clue about the how and why of obesity among the poor, you can talk about it. Poorer education and/or less ability to delay gratification. |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
4 edits | reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
The problem is that they aren't choosing food the same way person with more money would. Think cheap... Think fast - need to work more.
What is cheap and fast ? Food that typically is not good for you - McDonald's, Burger King, etc. This is why poorer people are obese.
Cheap and fast...hm...since I put myself completely through college + all personal expenses, let me answer that one for you
Pasta
oatmeal
milk
tuna
chicken
bananas
raisins
some other in-season fruits
frozen vegetables
celery
carrots
peanuts/peanut butter
eggs
yogurt
bread
rice
fruit juice (fresh kinda sorta, frozen most definitely)
Actually, the $6 meals at fast food aren't very economical. Though one could argue the dollar menus are fairly so. And of course, no-name packaged foods @ Wal*Mart are too.
The fact is, there are many fast/economical foods that are also healthy. Eating cheaply doesn't have to mean being a lard ass. That's just being a lazy ass.
As to "fast, need to work more" - From what I can tell, college educated people, who work on salary, work more. Hourly people are generally capped at 40 hours/week, those on salary aren't paid overtime, so they aren't so capped. I know there are examples of people working multiple hourly jobs, but that is not common at all.
I have not recently researched statistics to back this up though - do you have any for your viewpoint? Or any reasoning at all outside of pathos?
Seriously, stop being a whiny sympathizer. Sympathy is near useless if one doesn't understand the situation. I've traveled a bit of the world, and seen the statistics we have it easy here compared to the developing world.
edit: Haha, we appear to have gotten slightly off topic :P |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
When you have a clue about the how and why of obesity among the poor, you can talk about it.
Since you apparently have a clue, why not enlighten us all? All you're saying is "Nu-uh you're wrong!!", albeit more eloquently. |
|
