As for the starvation talk, when America can grow enough food to feed the world, and people are going hungry and starving in America, thats just sad. Not to mention the American government doesnt blink twice to send billions over seas or to impoverished countries to try and fix something, yet they refuse to work on what ails us right here.
How many of the people who are going hungry can we help? What is the threshold of tolerance for helping starving people? How much do we spend to help a fraction of the population not go hungry? How do we do this with out violating liberty? Should we have a government entity that make warrantless and random checks to make sure childern are being fed? Should we lock up a crack addict who sells their food stamps for crack?
The DCFS already does wellness checks on children.
The correct answer to your question about how many, is zero. Before we go running around the world trying to fix everyone elses problems, we need to fix whats going on at home.
I can not understand the mentality of letting people die or starve because of financial reasons. Not an innocent child, not an older person, not a homeless guy, not a family out of work. America was built by helping out each other, this turning our backs because it is profitable to do it is just tearing down the foundation of the country.
So you support warranteless searches with out probable cause to make sure childern are eating. You support locking/commiting addicts so they can eat? You suport all means to make sure people do not starve? Tearing down the foundation of this country...hmmm...these are my exact thoughts. You seriously do not think my argument is solely one of money....FYI....war and liberty is the base of my position. Further, I dispute the premise that money is not a consideration and your own actions probably would validate this, otherwise we'd be hearing stories of you feeding every person you were able too. I'm sure you have a few bucks in savings not being used. Go give that to a homeless person. You probably will not do that consequently proving you know there is line you will not cross to help.
At what point would/would not disrupt your standard of living/quality of life to help a starving person?
If you are endangering yourself or society, you have lost the right to liberty. Just because we can not make an industry out of it like we have our elderly or orphans doesnt mean its any less important. Would you say the elderly put in a nursing home still have liberty? That orphan stuck in an orphanage? I would say no.
As for my involvement, you dont know me or what I give to help. From time handing out what we have collected and/or bought. And yes I have given my savings to someone to help them in a rough situation.
I think you have a problem comprehending my argument which is not one of solutions but one of focusing on reasonable objectives. End world hungar is not a reasonable objective. 300 million to end world hungar is delusional. I'm trying to get people to identifty and quantify the problem and create a practical goal. Such as reducing hungar by 10% in developing nations and to what extent will they reach to acheive this goal. War? intervention? Outspending? This argument we should do everything possible to end world hungar is a fools game and waste both money and resources. no one wants to draw the line of acceptable hungar and that needs to be done so we can efficently address the issue.
I am just going to say your expectations are quite lower then most and I would argue you are in the minority, or you are wealthy and want to sit on your fortune instead of helping those in need.
As for my involvement, you dont know me or what I give to help. From time handing out what we have collected and/or bought. And yes I have given my savings to someone to help them in a rough situation.
You missed the point I was making, which was not to critize your giving but rather demonstrate there are limits to what you will give and logical reasons as to why you have those limits. Yet, you fail to see or talk about these limits when talking about poverty on a world or even national level.
I am just going to say your expectations are quite lower then most and I would argue you are in the minority, or you are wealthy and want to sit on your fortune instead of helping those in need.
I think you can not quantify or even identify your own expectaion other than state a delusional belief that it's possible and pragmatic to end world poverty.
As for my involvement, you dont know me or what I give to help. From time handing out what we have collected and/or bought. And yes I have given my savings to someone to help them in a rough situation.
You missed the point I was making, which was not to critize your giving but rather demonstrate there are limits to what you will give and logical reasons as to why you have those limits. Yet, you fail to see these limits when talking about poverty on a world or even national level.
I am just going to say your expectations are quite lower then most and I would argue you are in the minority, or you are wealthy and want to sit on your fortune instead of helping those in need.
I think you can not quantify or even identify your own expectaion other than state a delusional belief that it's possible and pragmatic to end world poverty.
It is why we need to do it as a nation. A group of people will always be able to do more for many then a single person. As a nation we should have a zero tolerance for starving, along with homelessness and malnutrition. Especially when we grow enough food to feed the entire world and people are starving at our doorstep.
If America can send billions to other countries for what is ailing those countries, America should be doing the same right here at home to solve the issues here.
As for my involvement, you dont know me or what I give to help. From time handing out what we have collected and/or bought. And yes I have given my savings to someone to help them in a rough situation.
You missed the point I was making, which was not to critize your giving but rather demonstrate there are limits to what you will give and logical reasons as to why you have those limits. Yet, you fail to see these limits when talking about poverty on a world or even national level.
I am just going to say your expectations are quite lower then most and I would argue you are in the minority, or you are wealthy and want to sit on your fortune instead of helping those in need.
I think you can not quantify or even identify your own expectaion other than state a delusional belief that it's possible and pragmatic to end world poverty.
It is why we need to do it as a nation. A group of people will always be able to do more for many then a single person. As a nation we should have a zero tolerance for starving, along with homelessness and malnutrition. Especially when we grow enough food to feed the entire world and people are starving at our doorstep.
If America can send billions to other countries for what is ailing those countries, America should be doing the same right here at home to solve the issues here.
Nobody in the US starves unless they are too mentally ill to get help. This whole 1 in 7 were hungry once in the last year stat is bull too. Heck I've been too broke to buy food for a day or two till I get paid, but I'm 40 lbs overweight enjoying my $240 a month cell phone plan. Guess I'm in the 1 in 7 who were "hungry" last year.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
If you are endangering yourself or society, you have lost the right to liberty.
So if I speed, I lose my liberty? If I smoke a little pot, I lose my right to liberty? This goes with out saying your failure to address the warrantless searches and no mechnisim to check if all kids are eating without commencing searches with out probable cause. I refuse to let someone in my home to make sure my hypothetical kids are eating.
As for my involvement, you dont know me or what I give to help. From time handing out what we have collected and/or bought. And yes I have given my savings to someone to help them in a rough situation.
You missed the point I was making, which was not to critize your giving but rather demonstrate there are limits to what you will give and logical reasons as to why you have those limits. Yet, you fail to see these limits when talking about poverty on a world or even national level.
I am just going to say your expectations are quite lower then most and I would argue you are in the minority, or you are wealthy and want to sit on your fortune instead of helping those in need.
I think you can not quantify or even identify your own expectaion other than state a delusional belief that it's possible and pragmatic to end world poverty.
It is why we need to do it as a nation. A group of people will always be able to do more for many then a single person. As a nation we should have a zero tolerance for starving, along with homelessness and malnutrition. Especially when we grow enough food to feed the entire world and people are starving at our doorstep.
If America can send billions to other countries for what is ailing those countries, America should be doing the same right here at home to solve the issues here.
I have an issue with zero tolerance. If you do not have zero tolerance at the indivudal level, what makes you think the country can?
If you are endangering yourself or society, you have lost the right to liberty.
So if I speed, I lose my liberty? If I smoke a little pot, I lose my right to liberty? This goes with out saying your failure to address the warrantless searches and no mechnisim to check if all kids are eating without commencing searches with out probable cause. I refuse to let someone in my home to make sure my hypothetical kids are eating.
Can you be arrested for speeding? Can you be arrested for having pot, let alone smoking it, so yes you should lose your liberties if you are trying to harm yourself knowingly.
I can tell you are not a parent. If someone knocked on my door to see if my kids were taken care of, I would show them they were. If someone is there to check on them, there usually is a reason. So your idea of checking with no probable cause is a bit far fetched.
I have an issue with zero tolerance. If you do not have zero tolerance at the indivudal level, what makes you think the country can?
Because a group or nation has always been able to do more then an individual. Thats not saying those with the most shouldnt be participating. They should. I mean without us peons, they wouldnt have the work force to make them billions. Its those with that money and the pull who should be heading the charge.
Quote from the_cardfather »
Nobody in the US starves unless they are too mentally ill to get help. This whole 1 in 7 were hungry once in the last year stat is bull too. Heck I've been too broke to buy food for a day or two till I get paid, but I'm 40 lbs overweight enjoying my $240 a month cell phone plan. Guess I'm in the 1 in 7 who were "hungry" last year.
In a country where they can not give a hard number on homeless, I wouldnt be so fast to discount figures of starvation. Just because you dont see it, doesnt mean it isnt out there.
I can tell you are not a parent. If someone knocked on my door to see if my kids were taken care of, I would show them they were..
What if they disapproved of the games they were playing or TV show they were watching? Who decides what appropriate care is?
If someone is there to check on them, there usually is a reason. So your idea of checking with no probable cause is a bit far fetched.
No, you said zero tolerance. This would dictate government checks to make sure kids and people do not go hungry (not all people starving are on the radar) and these checks would be conducted with and with out cause in order to fufill this zero tolerance policy.
Can you be arrested for having pot, let alone smoking it, so yes you should lose your liberties if you are trying to harm yourself knowingly.
So they can come in my house with a warrantless search and see that I have some pot and take my kids and arrest me?
Because a group or nation has always been able to do more then an individual. Thats not saying those with the most shouldnt be participating. They should. I mean without us peons, they wouldnt have the work force to make them billions. Its those with that money and the pull who should be heading the charge.
You refuse to address the critical issue. If you have reasons you will not or can not help, how can you expect the country/government not to have reasons they can not or will not help? yes, I know you cant think of one reason why the government cant help everyone in poverty. How do you help the country of North Korea eat?
I can tell you are not a parent. If someone knocked on my door to see if my kids were taken care of, I would show them they were..
What if they disapproved of the games they were playing or TV show they were watching? Who decides what appropriate care is?
If someone is there to check on them, there usually is a reason. So your idea of checking with no probable cause is a bit far fetched.
No, you said zero tolerance. This would dictate government checks to make sure kids and people do not go hungry (not all people starving are on the radar) and these checks would be conducted with and with out cause in order to fufill this zero tolerance policy.
Can you be arrested for having pot, let alone smoking it, so yes you should lose your liberties if you are trying to harm yourself knowingly.
So they can come in my house with a warrantless search and see that I have some pot and take my kids and arrest me?
Because a group or nation has always been able to do more then an individual. Thats not saying those with the most shouldnt be participating. They should. I mean without us peons, they wouldnt have the work force to make them billions. Its those with that money and the pull who should be heading the charge.
You refuse to address the critical issue. If you have reasons you will not or can not help, how can you expect the country/government not to have reasons they can not or will not help? yes, I know you cant think of one reason why the government cant help everyone in poverty. How do you help the country of North Korea eat?
Everyone has an idea how to raise a child. As long as that child is safe and fed, all else can be talked about.
I do believe in zero tolerance. I believe an adult that starves a child should be put to death. Simple as that. If it takes groups roaming around checking families, so be it.
Have you seen the population of the prisons? You do understand its been going on for a few decades now. If you have children and have not quite smoking herb, you dont deserve to be a parent. When you have a child you have to stop being selfish and realize you have a responsibility. A responsibility that herb is going to make difficult to accomplish.
Its easier to control a needy population. That is one reason the government would refuse to help. Another is collateral damage. An ends to a means.
As for feeding N.Korea, just grow the food. Something we already do. All the rest is just political red tape. Games being played with the lesser men. No different then in America.
Have you seen the population of the prisons? You do understand its been going on for a few decades now. If you have children and have not quite smoking herb, you dont deserve to be a parent. When you have a child you have to stop being selfish and realize you have a responsibility. A responsibility that herb is going to make difficult to accomplish.
This the problem. You set a standard on who does or does not deserve to be a parent and those roving inspectors you mentioned above will set their own standard.
As for feeding N.Korea, just grow the food. Something we already do. All the rest is just political red tape. Games being played with the lesser men. No different then in America.
It is that easy? Grow food? Who do you think will control the distrubution of that food? What if the food you grow does not get to the people it was intended for? What extereme should the world go to ensure the people get this food that we grow? War? How much will that war cost in lives and treasure?
Just as an example...
Is it worth one billion lives fight a war to eradicate hungar?
its it worth 100 trillion to eradicate hungar? Is it possible to pay that amount of money with out putting others into poverty?
If those figures are too high, please give me a figure that the most you would pay?
I think you have a problem comprehending my argument which is not one of solutions but one of focusing on reasonable objectives. End world hungar is not a reasonable objective. 300 million to end world hungar is delusional. I'm trying to get people to identifty and quantify the problem and create a practical goal. Such as reducing hungar by 10% in developing nations and to what extent will they reach to acheive this goal. War? intervention? Outspending? This argument we should do everything possible to end world hungar is a fools game and waste both money and resources. no one wants to draw the line of acceptable hungar and that needs to be done so we can efficently address the issue.
I kinda doubt anyone here is qualified to make that goal in an educated way. By the way, you can shoot for zero starvation and still set goals by setting goals that once reached are reassessed. You could say "reduce illness due to malnutrition and people who cannot meet daily caloric requirements by X% by [date]." Once that goal is reached it does not mean you are done, it just means that it is time to reassess the situation and set a new goal. The thing is this should be done by people who know what they are doing, not just ranting rubes on the interwebs.
As for my involvement, you dont know me or what I give to help. From time handing out what we have collected and/or bought. And yes I have given my savings to someone to help them in a rough situation.
You missed the point I was making, which was not to critize your giving but rather demonstrate there are limits to what you will give and logical reasons as to why you have those limits. Yet, you fail to see these limits when talking about poverty on a world or even national level.
I am just going to say your expectations are quite lower then most and I would argue you are in the minority, or you are wealthy and want to sit on your fortune instead of helping those in need.
I think you can not quantify or even identify your own expectaion other than state a delusional belief that it's possible and pragmatic to end world poverty.
It is why we need to do it as a nation. A group of people will always be able to do more for many then a single person. As a nation we should have a zero tolerance for starving, along with homelessness and malnutrition. Especially when we grow enough food to feed the entire world and people are starving at our doorstep.
If America can send billions to other countries for what is ailing those countries, America should be doing the same right here at home to solve the issues here.
Nobody in the US starves unless they are too mentally ill to get help. This whole 1 in 7 were hungry once in the last year stat is bull too. Heck I've been too broke to buy food for a day or two till I get paid, but I'm 40 lbs overweight enjoying my $240 a month cell phone plan. Guess I'm in the 1 in 7 who were "hungry" last year.
This is just wrong. Homeless people are not all mentally ill, and regularly go hungry. Children who rely on parents who are doing a ****ty job are not necessarily mentally ill, and they go hungry. Quit using your own personal experiences as the barometer of who goes hungry in the US. You probably are not part of the one in seven- you should find that statistic and look at what they define as "Hungry" in whatever study they are quoting.
With so many people in the world unable to even meet the basic needs of nutritious food, clean water, safe dwelling space, basic medicine/sanitation, etc. does this speak of an incredible mismanagement of the world's resources?
Whom do you nominate to manage them better?
Interesting that so few people can actually talk about the subject without taking it so personally.
This isn't about me. I'm asking what others think about this.
We aren't taking it personal. We've just hashed over this about 500 times and It's like dealing with the college freshmen in the bar on Good Will Hunting.
There are massive efforts to bring affordable clean water and low water farming techniques to impoverished areas, especially drought stricken parts of Africa. The problem is that many of those countries (Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad et et) do not have stable governments that allow or want us to use our "vast resources" to bring these people water and food because those governments know that if those people have water and food in excess they'll start to do other things with their time like learning to read and how to fight.
Timothy, Mimeslayer I would never see you as the type to advocate military force to get rid of these despots. Haven't we spent enough money and blood in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to do exactly what you are suggesting? The quality of life for women in those two countries is significantly better than before we showed up. Girls can now attend schools and be something other than baby machines.
How long should we go around pretending we have it all figured out here in the states? Perhaps the Euro guys are a bit more hands off because they took their turn at colonizing the known world already and realized they weren't going to fix anything either. (I sound like Tuss).
If you're going to comment at least read what is being said. Or else the freshman will know you have no idea what you're talking about. When did anyone say we, in the states have it all figured out?
Very few people can keep on track in this discussion without trying to personally attack others or break into other topics. This is about people meeting basic needs as stated SEVERAL TIMES of food, clean water, access to basic medicine, safe dwelling space, etc.
It's not that expensive, could be done with less than 10% of the extra wealth that a handful of people are holding, they would still be able to buy a new Ferrari every week, new houses every month, etc.
The US income disparity is overplayed. I don't know of anyone starving or dying of thirst in the United States. Most people have enough capital to at least waste all of it on material desires and make ends meet with foodstamps.
Glad to know your anecdotal experience of the world outweighs real studies and government statistics.
Quote from Asterisk »
The real problems are in Africa and parts of Asia. Between these regions exist serious ecological limitations which prevents their enormous populations from becoming comfortably modern. You really can't throw enough money at these regions to make things better, as they are poorly conceived or populations have grown beyond their capacity.
This is objectively bull****. Name one country that this is true for.
I was an intelligence analyst for 8 years...by far not an "amateur" opinion. If you are now attacking my crediblity to speak on this topic please state your bonafides.
I don't have to have personal authority. I cite experts, which is something you're apparently incapable of doing.
Quote from billydaman »
Please cite the acutal study not just the mention of it.
This is according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization; you can find their press release on the topic here. I don't believe the study is online.
Quote from billydaman »
Does that study take in account removing the current regime in North Korea where a signficant portion of the population goes hungry due to polices of the ruling party? Does it even mention that specfiic need? Or do they have some other magical and secret solution to somehow make the N. Korean regime less opressive? Unless that study addresses that, it is meaingless. It's delusional to think it would cost less than Iraq war to solve world hungar. Considering, in some cases, such as N. Korea, we'd have to go to war and redevelop the nation so we can make sure the population gets food. It seems you have linked a mention of that study and bought into it 100% with your idealistic leymans understanding of the worlds geopolitical unerpinnings, which by the way is the source of most of the hungar issues in several developing nations. You do not honestly think its as easy or cheap as just forking up 300 billion dollars do you? Tell me the person calling me an amateur does not think this...
Of course there are going to be challenges; of course it's not an overnight process; of course it is a long-term process, which also depends on other factors. Even acknowledging that, however, advocating for zero starvation in the world is the only moral position you can take. You can quibble about the timeframe, about how imperative it is, about whether it's feasible under present circumstances; none of those are a justification for ignoring the problem, or accepting a half-solution as enough.
Nobody in the US starves unless they are too mentally ill to get help. This whole 1 in 7 were hungry once in the last year stat is bull too. Heck I've been too broke to buy food for a day or two till I get paid, but I'm 40 lbs overweight enjoying my $240 a month cell phone plan. Guess I'm in the 1 in 7 who were "hungry" last year.
The single biggest cause of obesity in this country is, in fact, poor diet caused by inadequate access to healthy foods (for financial reasons).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Very few people can keep on track in this discussion without trying to personally attack others or break into other topics. This is about people meeting basic needs as stated SEVERAL TIMES of food, clean water, access to basic medicine, safe dwelling space, etc.
It's not that expensive, could be done with less than 10% of the extra wealth that a handful of people are holding, they would still be able to buy a new Ferrari every week, new houses every month, etc.
How do you do this for N Korea with out going to war? If you fail to understand the issue is not tied to wealth.
As a political party, Democrats always seem to have the idea that getting the government to enforce something that they don't personally want to do is a more efficient way of getting things done. Let's all legislate the problem into submission.
I, personally, dedicate 11% of my (admittedly meager) income to charity. I feel like this is an appropriate response to problems like world hunger, given my situation in life. I also give all my spare change away to people on the street who ask for it. I really, really, really don't feel like a bunch of people sitting in their ivory tower talking about how income disparity is so unfair without spending a dime between them to do anything, have much moral authority to go around passing laws to force such expenses on people, though.
The fact of the matter is that this isn't a worldwide problem, in terms of scale. It's an extremely personal problem that just happens to be going on for individual people all over the world. Go out and do something for the first homeless person you see tomorrow, and you'll have done more for the homeless than probably any politician in Congress has ever done.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
[
I don't have to have personal authority. I cite experts, which is something you're apparently incapable of doing.
No you cite opinion pieces and press releases, you've yet to produce this "study" and instead revert to attacking my credibility while ignoring valid arguments that discredits the number you've cited. I want you to show me in that study how much they feel it's going to cost to keep the N. Korean regime from interdicting and control food supply? How do we stop people from starving in Iraq? How much is that going to cost to keep insurgents and extremist from controlling the food supply? You are the one asserting a figure. Support it. What expert do you want me to cite to tell you N. Korea uses its might to oppress people? What expert do you need me to cite for you to believe N. Korea would use this food as leverage to their own power?
Besides, you called me an amateur...what are experts are using to to determine that?
I don't believe the study is online.
EXACTLY. Stop quoting $300 Billion then....because obviously you have not read it and have no clear understanding of this study and instead rely on op-eds to tell you if the study has any scientific merit, which at this point nothing has been shown its scientific. The reason it's not online? It's bull****. It does not take in account countries like N. Korea that would require a regime change.
Of course there are going to be challenges; of course it's not an overnight process; of course it is a long-term process, which also depends on other factors. Even acknowledging that, however, advocating for zero starvation in the world is the only moral position you can take. You can quibble about the timeframe, about how imperative it is, about whether it's feasible under present circumstances; none of those are a justification for ignoring the problem, or accepting a half-solution as enough.
I think it is immoral to kill unborn babies....I do not go around voting for pro-life measure though because I do not feel my morals belongs in your house. Its not a moral issue. Get your moral's out my life and my government.
Further, how moral is war? That's what your goal entails. Nobody is advocating ignoring the problem. If faced with going into a protracted war or having people starve....it becomes a matter of practicality. How many peoples lives are you willing to lose in order to feed the people of Iraq or N. Korea?
Ending poverty is the only "moral" position one can take? Okay, you pass a hungry beggar, you are being immoral. Really? Just another ridiculous example of people using "morals" to dictate policy.
Half solution? Your moral imperative assumes we should spend as much in human, political and economic capital as it takes to end poverty....and anything less is only justifying "half measures" or "ignoring" the problem or worse yet, we are being immoral.
If you are endangering yourself or society, you have lost the right to liberty.
This simply isn't true. Under this logic, any threat to the society could be responded to in any way possible. Critiquing government? You have no right to critique the government becaue you used it to critique the government, which might upset the status quo and lead to rebellions.
Liberty, without the liberty to use it to enact change, is no liberty at all. And change, by definition, is always dangerous.
If you have children and have not quite smoking herb, you dont deserve to be a parent.
I know of quite a few people that are well off financially, can take good care of their children, and can smoke pot. Pretty much the entirety of Netherlands doesn't seem to have a problem pulling that off.
The mantra goes: Anything in moderation. Just like alcoholic parents that have a genuine problem that's out of control fail to be good parents, so do people who can't keep their pot habit under control. That doesn't mean that drinking alcohol means your kids should be taken away.
You cannot generalize parenting based on a single act of the parent. Unless it is deliberately trying to kill their kids or something.
The single biggest cause of obesity in this country is, in fact, poor diet caused by inadequate access to healthy foods (for financial reasons).
This has to be bull****. I live in Finland, where food is much more expensive. I could still sustain a healthy diet for a ridiculously low amount of money. The problem isnot the affordability of food, it's the decision where people value taste over health.
Is there a scientific study to begin with? The press release is not citing any paper, and the document containing the speech does not have any sources named. If you can find the name of the study, I'm quite certain I can dig it up using my access to local university database.
----------
Ultimately, I feel that the solution to fixing wealth gaps is less government regulation on other countries, and less globalization. I am strongly against subsidizing specific crops or using politics to force poor countries to lower their tolls.
A lot of countries were doing better before their farmers were forced to enter the global market due to lowered import duties on crops. In the global market, they had to compete with practically free crops from the US and EU, where growing these is subsidized very significantly. This led to a lot of farmers losing their fields to multinational corporations, who then use the fields to grow tobacco, coffee, tea, and/or drugs in a very unsustainable manner. This has led to a lot of countries being completely reliant on imported food to feed their population.
Of course, as long as it is in the benefits of the EU and US to continue to enact these policies, they will do so. We'll continue shipping guns to rebellious movements and then only offer to help the countries struggling with these criminals, pirates, or whatever if they reduce their import duties and taxations. Then we do a financial invasion, own everything, and make them dependent on us. And we'll continue to do so because it's profitable.
If we just stopped screwing over developing countries to maximize our own gain, I'm sure they'd develop faster.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Have you seen the population of the prisons? You do understand its been going on for a few decades now. If you have children and have not quite smoking herb, you dont deserve to be a parent. When you have a child you have to stop being selfish and realize you have a responsibility. A responsibility that herb is going to make difficult to accomplish.
This the problem. You set a standard on who does or does not deserve to be a parent and those roving inspectors you mentioned above will set their own standard.
Those inspectors will have someone telling them what is acceptable. Each inspector will not have their own criteria. Those expectations will be known when you have a child. If you choose to ignore the standards, you lose your children.
As for feeding N.Korea, just grow the food. Something we already do. All the rest is just political red tape. Games being played with the lesser men. No different then in America.
It is that easy? Grow food? Who do you think will control the distrubution of that food? What if the food you grow does not get to the people it was intended for? What extereme should the world go to ensure the people get this food that we grow? War? How much will that war cost in lives and treasure?
Just as an example...
Is it worth one billion lives fight a war to eradicate hungar?
its it worth 100 trillion to eradicate hungar? Is it possible to pay that amount of money with out putting others into poverty?
If those figures are too high, please give me a figure that the most you would pay?
We have gone to war for less. You speak about money like its a draw back. How much has been spent on wars the past 100 years? How much has been spent on weapons of mass destruction, development and building? War and WMDs are to harm humanity and we freely spend billions, hell trillions on those causes. I feel something that helps humanity should get at least the same, if not more funding.
Quote from Amadi »
I know of quite a few people that are well off financially, can take good care of their children, and can smoke pot. Pretty much the entirety of Netherlands doesn't seem to have a problem pulling that off.
The mantra goes: Anything in moderation. Just like alcoholic parents that have a genuine problem that's out of control fail to be good parents, so do people who can't keep their pot habit under control. That doesn't mean that drinking alcohol means your kids should be taken away.
You cannot generalize parenting based on a single act of the parent. Unless it is deliberately trying to kill their kids or something.
Even with alcohol, like pot, the user has less control of themselves, even in moderation. Said parent who, even under moderation, causes their child some type of harm simply by not being able to react or act in a normal manner should be punished.
If you are taking a mood altering chemical, legal or not, you do not have the capacity to take care of a child.
This simply isn't true. Under this logic, any threat to the society could be responded to in any way possible. Critiquing government? You have no right to critique the government becaue you used it to critique the government, which might upset the status quo and lead to rebellions.
Speaking bad about a government is not threatening. Starting a riot is. I can see if the person is standing on soapbox and inciting riots, but not in a casual conversation. I understand the fear is the later being punished. Its a fine line I admit.
As for the difference in wealth in America, just remember there was a time the riches person in the country was worth more then the entire country and we made it through that time.
The single biggest cause of obesity in this country is, in fact, poor diet caused by inadequate access to healthy foods (for financial reasons).
This has to be bull****. I live in Finland, where food is much more expensive. I could still sustain a healthy diet for a ridiculously low amount of money. The problem isnot the affordability of food, it's the decision where people value taste over health.
And the lack of education.
I believe Senori is referring to the relative costs of healthy versus unhealthy foods. It doesn't matter so much (for this topic anyway) how high or low they are absolutely; if a Big Mac, Coke, and fries are cheaper than a fresh chicken breast, fruit, and salad, then the burger is going to be more economically attractive. There is also the matter of opportunity cost: going to McDonald's is quicker and easier than preparing a healthy meal yourself, as well as being cheaper. Even if you have all the money in the world, home cooking may be a luxury you can't afford.
That said, I'm pretty sure McDonald's is cheap and fast everywhere, and there's definitely a cultural component to diet. One pattern that I've read about is that the obesity rate in America follows the regions of strong blue-collar culture: it's worst in West Virginia, historically a heavy mining state, and similarly high throughout the rural and working-class South and Midwest. You observe Southern families going into grocery stores and buying lard by the gallon, and you can see why. The traditional diets of these people (to wit: fried everything) are extremely high calorie, because traditionally these people were going out and doing extremely high-calorie physical labor. Now, their life has gotten a lot more sedentary thanks to automation and economic shifts, but the diet remains. And the body balances this equation with fat cells.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Even with alcohol, like pot, the user has less control of themselves, even in moderation. Said parent who, even under moderation, causes their child some type of harm simply by not being able to react or act in a normal manner should be punished.
If you are taking a mood altering chemical, legal or not, you do not have the capacity to take care of a child.
Welp, I suppose we better ban coffee and make it illegal for people with ADHD to have children. Also, did you know that sperm causes hormonal changes in females, we better ban women that have sex from having children.
Your stance is incredibly extremistic and, as far as I can tell, not based on any set of data that would show that consumption of drug necessarily leads to bad parenting in individual cases.
Speaking bad about a government is not threatening. Starting a riot is. I can see if the person is standing on soapbox and inciting riots, but not in a casual conversation. I understand the fear is the later being punished. Its a fine line I admit.
No, it's not a fine line. It's a slippery slope, and there is no objective definition that would work. What is non-risky enough? Direct incitement of riots? Acting hopeful towards future riots, discussing the possibility of a riot? Showing that you're discontent with something?
If you make rules, those that can be discreet and send hidden messages will be able to avoid them. If you don't make direct rules, this justification can be used to persecute anyone who disagrees with the current ruling class. And history shows that it will be used to do so.
I believe Senori is referring to the relative costs of healthy versus unhealthy foods. It doesn't matter so much (for this topic anyway) how high or low they are absolutely; if a Big Mac, Coke, and fries are cheaper than a fresh chicken breast, fruit, and salad, then the burger is going to be more economically attractive.
This still relies under assumption that meat is the only source of proteins, and you restrict your diet very heavily based on general perceptions rather than nutritional value. Beans are something you're basically paid to take off of hands of someone, and flour is arguably cheaper than quality dirt to farm plants in.
There is also the matter of opportunity cost: going to McDonald's is quicker and easier than preparing a healthy meal yourself, as well as being cheaper. Even if you have all the money in the world, home cooking may be a luxury you can't afford.
This is a solid argument. You get to pick two of the following: Easy and fast to prepare, Cheap, and/or Healthy. That being said, I don't believe people are that starved for time, or if they are they're probably working ridiculous amounts of overtime for marginal pay increase, and could save the amount of money they'd lose by working less in decreased costs of groceries.
That said, I'm pretty sure McDonald's is cheap and fast everywhere, and there's definitely a cultural component to diet.
There's also a geographical effect. People in warmer areas surprisingly enough prefer saltier food. I'm sure there are other correlations between environment and food of choice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Since the original topic was income disparity, I thought I'd share some thoughts on that.
It seems to me that somewhere around the 60's and 70's watching national TV shows started becoming very normal. This provided entrepreneurs an avenue for increased mass marketing which in turn helped create an increasing number of large corporations.
As more and more business was done by large corporations, more and more legislation relating to businesses had the large corporate model in mind. Large corporations often have a large amount of resources to devote to knowing and following regulations, so lawmakers could worry less about how complicated and difficult following regulations would be.
Also as more national corporations rise brand recognition becomes an increasingly important factor to shoppers who often prefer the recognized brand and it's guarantee of satisfaction over the less well known local brands.
Over time we've created an environment that favors large corporations and almost actively discourages young, bright, motivated entrepreneurs by setting the initial hurdles so high that most would rather just work for someone else than risk 10's or 100's of thousands trying out their own ideas.
It makes sense to me that large corporations will have greater income disparity than smaller corporations and independent businesses. If an organization has 5,000 employees in 100 locations around the country, there will by necessity be several levels of management. For every level of management and administration, there is a bump in the disparity of income between to lower level and the top level employees.
If we as consumers favor doing business at smaller organizations and at the same time we can convince law makers to ease regulations on smaller businesses and somehow find a sensible way to discourage (not disallow) businesses getting too large, then I think the income disparity in this country will begin to close once again.
I do see a lot happening on the consumer end, but I think we still need to improve regulation to be not only more favorable to small businesses, but also provide some incentives for entrepreneurs to try striking out on their own instead of working for some large corporation.
Those inspectors will have someone telling them what is acceptable. Each inspector will not have their own criteria. Those expectations will be known when you have a child. If you choose to ignore the standards, you lose your children.
I do not agree that I have to raise my kids the way the government wants me too. There is no "standard" to raising a kid.
We have gone to war for less. You speak about money like its a draw back. How much has been spent on wars the past 100 years? How much has been spent on weapons of mass destruction, development and building? War and WMDs are to harm humanity and we freely spend billions, hell trillions on those causes. I feel something that helps humanity should get at least the same, if not more funding.
Do you not understand one of the cost to eradicate poverty in the world is war? Money is a draw back. There is only so much you can spend before it will have the reverse affect...
If you are taking a mood altering chemical, legal or not, you do not have the capacity to take care of a child.
Sugar ((2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-2-[(2S,3S,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,5-bis(hydroxymethyl)oxolan-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-3,4,5-triol_), caffeine (1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione), etc, etc.
Those inspectors will have someone telling them what is acceptable. Each inspector will not have their own criteria. Those expectations will be known when you have a child. If you choose to ignore the standards, you lose your children.
I do not agree that I have to raise my kids the way the government wants me too. There is no "standard" to raising a kid.
To each their own. I would say if you are not going to listen to anyone on raising your kids, maybe you shouldnt be a parent. A parent should be able to provide basic survival for a child. That means shelter, food and clothing.
We have gone to war for less. You speak about money like its a draw back. How much has been spent on wars the past 100 years? How much has been spent on weapons of mass destruction, development and building? War and WMDs are to harm humanity and we freely spend billions, hell trillions on those causes. I feel something that helps humanity should get at least the same, if not more funding.
Do you not understand one of the cost to eradicate poverty in the world is war? Money is a draw back. There is only so much you can spend before it will have the reverse affect...
You say. Like I have said, we have gone to war for less. Where do we draw the line for going to war? I think for bettering humanity is a better idea then revenge or to place a government we agree more with.
If you are taking a mood altering chemical, legal or not, you do not have the capacity to take care of a child.
Sugar ((2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-2-[(2S,3S,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,5-bis(hydroxymethyl)oxolan-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-3,4,5-triol_), caffeine (1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione), etc, etc.
Anyone who eats fruit is a horrible parent.
What you are missing is alcohol and pot slow your reaction times, the drugs you mention speed them up or make them better.
If your child is playing on the couch and falls and you are high, your reaction time is going to be slower and there is a greater chance of the child being hurt because of your lack of action. What you mention wouldnt have that effect.
You say. Like I have said, we have gone to war for less. Where do we draw the line for going to war? I think for bettering humanity is a better idea then revenge or to place a government we agree more with.
It's seems so easy for you to sacrafice other peoples lives in an attempt to placate your idealistic notions of ending hungar. Why is a soldiers life less important than a starving persons? Will you sign up to go to war yourself to end the starvation in N. Korea?
What you are missing is alcohol and pot slow your reaction times, the drugs you mention speed them up or make them better.
Caffeine can cause insomnia, nervousness and restlessness, stomach irritation, nausea and vomiting, increased heart rate and respiration, and other side effects. Caffeine can make sleep disorders in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) worse. Larger doses might cause headache, anxiety, agitation, chest pain, and ringing in the ears.
If you are endangering yourself or society, you have lost the right to liberty. Just because we can not make an industry out of it like we have our elderly or orphans doesnt mean its any less important. Would you say the elderly put in a nursing home still have liberty? That orphan stuck in an orphanage? I would say no.
As for my involvement, you dont know me or what I give to help. From time handing out what we have collected and/or bought. And yes I have given my savings to someone to help them in a rough situation.
I am just going to say your expectations are quite lower then most and I would argue you are in the minority, or you are wealthy and want to sit on your fortune instead of helping those in need.
You missed the point I was making, which was not to critize your giving but rather demonstrate there are limits to what you will give and logical reasons as to why you have those limits. Yet, you fail to see or talk about these limits when talking about poverty on a world or even national level.
I think you can not quantify or even identify your own expectaion other than state a delusional belief that it's possible and pragmatic to end world poverty.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It is why we need to do it as a nation. A group of people will always be able to do more for many then a single person. As a nation we should have a zero tolerance for starving, along with homelessness and malnutrition. Especially when we grow enough food to feed the entire world and people are starving at our doorstep.
If America can send billions to other countries for what is ailing those countries, America should be doing the same right here at home to solve the issues here.
Nobody in the US starves unless they are too mentally ill to get help. This whole 1 in 7 were hungry once in the last year stat is bull too. Heck I've been too broke to buy food for a day or two till I get paid, but I'm 40 lbs overweight enjoying my $240 a month cell phone plan. Guess I'm in the 1 in 7 who were "hungry" last year.
So if I speed, I lose my liberty? If I smoke a little pot, I lose my right to liberty? This goes with out saying your failure to address the warrantless searches and no mechnisim to check if all kids are eating without commencing searches with out probable cause. I refuse to let someone in my home to make sure my hypothetical kids are eating.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I have an issue with zero tolerance. If you do not have zero tolerance at the indivudal level, what makes you think the country can?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Can you be arrested for speeding? Can you be arrested for having pot, let alone smoking it, so yes you should lose your liberties if you are trying to harm yourself knowingly.
I can tell you are not a parent. If someone knocked on my door to see if my kids were taken care of, I would show them they were. If someone is there to check on them, there usually is a reason. So your idea of checking with no probable cause is a bit far fetched.
Because a group or nation has always been able to do more then an individual. Thats not saying those with the most shouldnt be participating. They should. I mean without us peons, they wouldnt have the work force to make them billions. Its those with that money and the pull who should be heading the charge.
In a country where they can not give a hard number on homeless, I wouldnt be so fast to discount figures of starvation. Just because you dont see it, doesnt mean it isnt out there.
What if they disapproved of the games they were playing or TV show they were watching? Who decides what appropriate care is?
No, you said zero tolerance. This would dictate government checks to make sure kids and people do not go hungry (not all people starving are on the radar) and these checks would be conducted with and with out cause in order to fufill this zero tolerance policy.
So they can come in my house with a warrantless search and see that I have some pot and take my kids and arrest me?
You refuse to address the critical issue. If you have reasons you will not or can not help, how can you expect the country/government not to have reasons they can not or will not help? yes, I know you cant think of one reason why the government cant help everyone in poverty. How do you help the country of North Korea eat?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Everyone has an idea how to raise a child. As long as that child is safe and fed, all else can be talked about.
I do believe in zero tolerance. I believe an adult that starves a child should be put to death. Simple as that. If it takes groups roaming around checking families, so be it.
Have you seen the population of the prisons? You do understand its been going on for a few decades now. If you have children and have not quite smoking herb, you dont deserve to be a parent. When you have a child you have to stop being selfish and realize you have a responsibility. A responsibility that herb is going to make difficult to accomplish.
Its easier to control a needy population. That is one reason the government would refuse to help. Another is collateral damage. An ends to a means.
As for feeding N.Korea, just grow the food. Something we already do. All the rest is just political red tape. Games being played with the lesser men. No different then in America.
This the problem. You set a standard on who does or does not deserve to be a parent and those roving inspectors you mentioned above will set their own standard.
It is that easy? Grow food? Who do you think will control the distrubution of that food? What if the food you grow does not get to the people it was intended for? What extereme should the world go to ensure the people get this food that we grow? War? How much will that war cost in lives and treasure?
Just as an example...
Is it worth one billion lives fight a war to eradicate hungar?
its it worth 100 trillion to eradicate hungar? Is it possible to pay that amount of money with out putting others into poverty?
If those figures are too high, please give me a figure that the most you would pay?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
This is just wrong. Homeless people are not all mentally ill, and regularly go hungry. Children who rely on parents who are doing a ****ty job are not necessarily mentally ill, and they go hungry. Quit using your own personal experiences as the barometer of who goes hungry in the US. You probably are not part of the one in seven- you should find that statistic and look at what they define as "Hungry" in whatever study they are quoting.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
If you're going to comment at least read what is being said. Or else the freshman will know you have no idea what you're talking about. When did anyone say we, in the states have it all figured out?
It's not that expensive, could be done with less than 10% of the extra wealth that a handful of people are holding, they would still be able to buy a new Ferrari every week, new houses every month, etc.
Glad to know your anecdotal experience of the world outweighs real studies and government statistics.
This is objectively bull****. Name one country that this is true for.
I don't have to have personal authority. I cite experts, which is something you're apparently incapable of doing.
This is according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization; you can find their press release on the topic here. I don't believe the study is online.
Of course there are going to be challenges; of course it's not an overnight process; of course it is a long-term process, which also depends on other factors. Even acknowledging that, however, advocating for zero starvation in the world is the only moral position you can take. You can quibble about the timeframe, about how imperative it is, about whether it's feasible under present circumstances; none of those are a justification for ignoring the problem, or accepting a half-solution as enough.
Please cite a single mainstream economist who agrees with you here, please.
The single biggest cause of obesity in this country is, in fact, poor diet caused by inadequate access to healthy foods (for financial reasons).
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
How do you do this for N Korea with out going to war? If you fail to understand the issue is not tied to wealth.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I, personally, dedicate 11% of my (admittedly meager) income to charity. I feel like this is an appropriate response to problems like world hunger, given my situation in life. I also give all my spare change away to people on the street who ask for it. I really, really, really don't feel like a bunch of people sitting in their ivory tower talking about how income disparity is so unfair without spending a dime between them to do anything, have much moral authority to go around passing laws to force such expenses on people, though.
The fact of the matter is that this isn't a worldwide problem, in terms of scale. It's an extremely personal problem that just happens to be going on for individual people all over the world. Go out and do something for the first homeless person you see tomorrow, and you'll have done more for the homeless than probably any politician in Congress has ever done.
No you cite opinion pieces and press releases, you've yet to produce this "study" and instead revert to attacking my credibility while ignoring valid arguments that discredits the number you've cited. I want you to show me in that study how much they feel it's going to cost to keep the N. Korean regime from interdicting and control food supply? How do we stop people from starving in Iraq? How much is that going to cost to keep insurgents and extremist from controlling the food supply? You are the one asserting a figure. Support it. What expert do you want me to cite to tell you N. Korea uses its might to oppress people? What expert do you need me to cite for you to believe N. Korea would use this food as leverage to their own power?
Besides, you called me an amateur...what are experts are using to to determine that?
EXACTLY. Stop quoting $300 Billion then....because obviously you have not read it and have no clear understanding of this study and instead rely on op-eds to tell you if the study has any scientific merit, which at this point nothing has been shown its scientific. The reason it's not online? It's bull****. It does not take in account countries like N. Korea that would require a regime change.
I think it is immoral to kill unborn babies....I do not go around voting for pro-life measure though because I do not feel my morals belongs in your house. Its not a moral issue. Get your moral's out my life and my government.
Further, how moral is war? That's what your goal entails. Nobody is advocating ignoring the problem. If faced with going into a protracted war or having people starve....it becomes a matter of practicality. How many peoples lives are you willing to lose in order to feed the people of Iraq or N. Korea?
Ending poverty is the only "moral" position one can take? Okay, you pass a hungry beggar, you are being immoral. Really? Just another ridiculous example of people using "morals" to dictate policy.
Half solution? Your moral imperative assumes we should spend as much in human, political and economic capital as it takes to end poverty....and anything less is only justifying "half measures" or "ignoring" the problem or worse yet, we are being immoral.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
This simply isn't true. Under this logic, any threat to the society could be responded to in any way possible. Critiquing government? You have no right to critique the government becaue you used it to critique the government, which might upset the status quo and lead to rebellions.
Liberty, without the liberty to use it to enact change, is no liberty at all. And change, by definition, is always dangerous.
I know of quite a few people that are well off financially, can take good care of their children, and can smoke pot. Pretty much the entirety of Netherlands doesn't seem to have a problem pulling that off.
The mantra goes: Anything in moderation. Just like alcoholic parents that have a genuine problem that's out of control fail to be good parents, so do people who can't keep their pot habit under control. That doesn't mean that drinking alcohol means your kids should be taken away.
You cannot generalize parenting based on a single act of the parent. Unless it is deliberately trying to kill their kids or something.
This has to be bull****. I live in Finland, where food is much more expensive. I could still sustain a healthy diet for a ridiculously low amount of money. The problem isnot the affordability of food, it's the decision where people value taste over health.
And the lack of education.
Is there a scientific study to begin with? The press release is not citing any paper, and the document containing the speech does not have any sources named. If you can find the name of the study, I'm quite certain I can dig it up using my access to local university database.
----------
Ultimately, I feel that the solution to fixing wealth gaps is less government regulation on other countries, and less globalization. I am strongly against subsidizing specific crops or using politics to force poor countries to lower their tolls.
A lot of countries were doing better before their farmers were forced to enter the global market due to lowered import duties on crops. In the global market, they had to compete with practically free crops from the US and EU, where growing these is subsidized very significantly. This led to a lot of farmers losing their fields to multinational corporations, who then use the fields to grow tobacco, coffee, tea, and/or drugs in a very unsustainable manner. This has led to a lot of countries being completely reliant on imported food to feed their population.
Of course, as long as it is in the benefits of the EU and US to continue to enact these policies, they will do so. We'll continue shipping guns to rebellious movements and then only offer to help the countries struggling with these criminals, pirates, or whatever if they reduce their import duties and taxations. Then we do a financial invasion, own everything, and make them dependent on us. And we'll continue to do so because it's profitable.
If we just stopped screwing over developing countries to maximize our own gain, I'm sure they'd develop faster.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Those inspectors will have someone telling them what is acceptable. Each inspector will not have their own criteria. Those expectations will be known when you have a child. If you choose to ignore the standards, you lose your children.
We have gone to war for less. You speak about money like its a draw back. How much has been spent on wars the past 100 years? How much has been spent on weapons of mass destruction, development and building? War and WMDs are to harm humanity and we freely spend billions, hell trillions on those causes. I feel something that helps humanity should get at least the same, if not more funding.
Even with alcohol, like pot, the user has less control of themselves, even in moderation. Said parent who, even under moderation, causes their child some type of harm simply by not being able to react or act in a normal manner should be punished.
If you are taking a mood altering chemical, legal or not, you do not have the capacity to take care of a child.
Speaking bad about a government is not threatening. Starting a riot is. I can see if the person is standing on soapbox and inciting riots, but not in a casual conversation. I understand the fear is the later being punished. Its a fine line I admit.
As for the difference in wealth in America, just remember there was a time the riches person in the country was worth more then the entire country and we made it through that time.
That said, I'm pretty sure McDonald's is cheap and fast everywhere, and there's definitely a cultural component to diet. One pattern that I've read about is that the obesity rate in America follows the regions of strong blue-collar culture: it's worst in West Virginia, historically a heavy mining state, and similarly high throughout the rural and working-class South and Midwest. You observe Southern families going into grocery stores and buying lard by the gallon, and you can see why. The traditional diets of these people (to wit: fried everything) are extremely high calorie, because traditionally these people were going out and doing extremely high-calorie physical labor. Now, their life has gotten a lot more sedentary thanks to automation and economic shifts, but the diet remains. And the body balances this equation with fat cells.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Welp, I suppose we better ban coffee and make it illegal for people with ADHD to have children. Also, did you know that sperm causes hormonal changes in females, we better ban women that have sex from having children.
Your stance is incredibly extremistic and, as far as I can tell, not based on any set of data that would show that consumption of drug necessarily leads to bad parenting in individual cases.
No, it's not a fine line. It's a slippery slope, and there is no objective definition that would work. What is non-risky enough? Direct incitement of riots? Acting hopeful towards future riots, discussing the possibility of a riot? Showing that you're discontent with something?
If you make rules, those that can be discreet and send hidden messages will be able to avoid them. If you don't make direct rules, this justification can be used to persecute anyone who disagrees with the current ruling class. And history shows that it will be used to do so.
This still relies under assumption that meat is the only source of proteins, and you restrict your diet very heavily based on general perceptions rather than nutritional value. Beans are something you're basically paid to take off of hands of someone, and flour is arguably cheaper than quality dirt to farm plants in.
This is a solid argument. You get to pick two of the following: Easy and fast to prepare, Cheap, and/or Healthy. That being said, I don't believe people are that starved for time, or if they are they're probably working ridiculous amounts of overtime for marginal pay increase, and could save the amount of money they'd lose by working less in decreased costs of groceries.
There's also a geographical effect. People in warmer areas surprisingly enough prefer saltier food. I'm sure there are other correlations between environment and food of choice.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
It seems to me that somewhere around the 60's and 70's watching national TV shows started becoming very normal. This provided entrepreneurs an avenue for increased mass marketing which in turn helped create an increasing number of large corporations.
As more and more business was done by large corporations, more and more legislation relating to businesses had the large corporate model in mind. Large corporations often have a large amount of resources to devote to knowing and following regulations, so lawmakers could worry less about how complicated and difficult following regulations would be.
Also as more national corporations rise brand recognition becomes an increasingly important factor to shoppers who often prefer the recognized brand and it's guarantee of satisfaction over the less well known local brands.
Over time we've created an environment that favors large corporations and almost actively discourages young, bright, motivated entrepreneurs by setting the initial hurdles so high that most would rather just work for someone else than risk 10's or 100's of thousands trying out their own ideas.
It makes sense to me that large corporations will have greater income disparity than smaller corporations and independent businesses. If an organization has 5,000 employees in 100 locations around the country, there will by necessity be several levels of management. For every level of management and administration, there is a bump in the disparity of income between to lower level and the top level employees.
If we as consumers favor doing business at smaller organizations and at the same time we can convince law makers to ease regulations on smaller businesses and somehow find a sensible way to discourage (not disallow) businesses getting too large, then I think the income disparity in this country will begin to close once again.
I do see a lot happening on the consumer end, but I think we still need to improve regulation to be not only more favorable to small businesses, but also provide some incentives for entrepreneurs to try striking out on their own instead of working for some large corporation.
I do not agree that I have to raise my kids the way the government wants me too. There is no "standard" to raising a kid.
Do you not understand one of the cost to eradicate poverty in the world is war? Money is a draw back. There is only so much you can spend before it will have the reverse affect...
Sugar ((2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-2-[(2S,3S,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,5-bis(hydroxymethyl)oxolan-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-3,4,5-triol_), caffeine (1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione), etc, etc.
Anyone who eats fruit is a horrible parent.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
To each their own. I would say if you are not going to listen to anyone on raising your kids, maybe you shouldnt be a parent. A parent should be able to provide basic survival for a child. That means shelter, food and clothing.
You say. Like I have said, we have gone to war for less. Where do we draw the line for going to war? I think for bettering humanity is a better idea then revenge or to place a government we agree more with.
What you are missing is alcohol and pot slow your reaction times, the drugs you mention speed them up or make them better.
If your child is playing on the couch and falls and you are high, your reaction time is going to be slower and there is a greater chance of the child being hurt because of your lack of action. What you mention wouldnt have that effect.
It's seems so easy for you to sacrafice other peoples lives in an attempt to placate your idealistic notions of ending hungar. Why is a soldiers life less important than a starving persons? Will you sign up to go to war yourself to end the starvation in N. Korea?
Side effects of caffine:
Sugar
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.