why are poor people fat? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

abaya · 05-25-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

It is not an insurmountable task to plan a year ahead and work towards a goal of self-improvement, it simply takes determination, forethought, and a minimal bit of intelligence.

Do you think that working 50-60 hours a week shows lack of determination, forethought, and intelligence? Do you think that working 2-3 manual laboring jobs suggests laziness? Is it morally wrong to want things to be convenient, even when they go against your long-term interests?

Anyway, sounds like you're a pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps type. If we expand this to the international level of poverty analysis, you'd strike me as being in the modernization camp. Chalk me up to being a world systems/dependency theorist, which I take as meaning we're fundamentally opposite in our viewpoints on the topic and therefore will not yield any ground in such a debate. So it goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Not everyone has the same amount of mental fortitude, sometimes its hard to have courage. Everyone has a weakness of one sort ot another. In saying that, the choices people do make are their own.

Well said, and a lot more simpler than my rambles.

Carno · 05-25-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Chalk me up to being a world systems/dependency theorist, which I take as meaning we're fundamentally opposite in our viewpoints on the topic and therefore will not yield any ground in such a debate. So it goes.

You think the only way people can get "up" is if someone does it for them?

abaya · 05-25-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carno

You think the only way people can get "up" is if someone does it for them?

No. Just that usually, there is more going on (both in the causes and consequences of poverty) than a lack of bootstrap-type initiative. Not all of us have the skills or resources to get out of a shitty spot, and it's not for lack of trying.

shesus · 05-25-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carno

You think the only way people can get "up" is if someone does it for them?

I think that theory has been proven wrong in the US. Look how great welfare goes. Those people aren't using the help to pull themselves up. The majority of them are living on it from generation to generation as they fatten themselves up because they buy junk food and sit around all day doing much of nothing. Some people use it for good but not many.

I think the whole issue revolves around people taking responsibility for themselves. If you're fat, realize why you are fat and fix it. Do you have to work to do that? Hell, yeah. But if people don't want to buy and consume healthy food and move the body in some way, then they will stay fat. And that is not only an unattractive sight, but carries many health risks. Survival of the fittest I suppose...

Even if a person is working crazy schedules and is pulled every which way...how hard is it to make a pot of beans and rice? Yes, you do have to open the can and boil the rice and wait about 20 minutes. I guess that is exhausting for some people. Don't like beans and rice? There are a ton of cheap 30 minute or less meals that are extremely tasty and healthful.

The main reasons that I see, in no particular order, are:
1) lack of nutritional education
2) lack of self-control/discipline
3) laziness
4) genetics

Lack of money isn't the issue..healthy food is actually somewhat cheaper, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

No. Just that usually, there is more going on (both in the causes and consequences of poverty) than a lack of bootstrap-type initiative. Not all of us have the skills or resources to get out of a shitty spot, and it's not for lack of trying.

Some people maybe, but there was a lack of trying at some point in time.

Generational poverty is what I'm most familiar with. The parents are poor, they realize that their lives are shit too late and want better for their children. However, they don't know how to help their children because they didn't try in school and don't have the education. The kids see that in their parents and instead of thinking, "Wow, I don't want to be like my mom or dad." They think in their child brain, "My parents ain't got no education and we do fine." Then they grow up and realize too late that they should have taken advantage of the free education...and hence the generational cycle.

So while people may be trying, they are trying too late. People who hit a bump in the road and find themselves flat broke have the resources (i.e. education) to get out because they tried in the past and are still trying now. While it might take a while to dig out, the past accomplishments help.

dirtyrascal7 · 05-25-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Please find me someone that doesn't know that an apple is more healthy than a small order of McDonald's french fries. It is common sense, something that Subway is making millions and millions of dollars off of.

It was not my intention to imply that people can't distinguish the nutritional value of an apple vs. french fries, although I've found that common sense isn't really all that common.

My point was that, in general, lower-income families are also less educated. I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage couldn't fill out a food pyramid or even tell you the main food groups, so I highly doubt they are going to know what a balanced diet looks like... which means they are more susceptible to marketing because, like I said, they essentially don't know any better. They just know they're hungry and that a Super-Sized Big Mac Meal sounds delicious.

Fast food marketing spins their product to look tasty and desireable. They know the nutritional value is lacking, so they don't talk about it... they try to appeal to people in other ways, such as cheap pricing and quick service... and it works. But you're right, that is exactly why Subway DOES mention their nutrition information in their marketing. It's a competitive advantage they have over McDonalds, Burker King, etc. However, I would much rather own a McDonalds franchise than a Subway franchise... any day of the week.

Willravel · 05-25-2007, 02:16 PM

Good point, dirtyrascal. I've never even seen a commercial for apples (cept for those trendy iPod commercials).

cyklone · 05-25-2007, 02:29 PM

Why is is that the only poor people who are fat live in the Western world. You certainly don't see too many fat poor people in third world countries. That would tend to indicate that there is a factor other than just being poor, for instance perhaps it is more about the type of food that is easily available to poorer people, the culture within the lower socio-economic classes or the education of poorer people.
Then again, perhaps it is not that poor people are fat in the west, but that fat people are poor because they are too bloody lazy to get off their fat arses.

shesus · 05-25-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7

My point was that, in general, lower-income families are also less educated. I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage couldn't fill out a food pyramid or even tell you the main food groups, so I highly doubt they are going to know what a balanced diet looks like... which means they are more susceptible to marketing because, like I said, they essentially don't know any better. They just know they're hungry and that a Super-Sized Big Mac Meal sounds delicious.

Actually depending on who you talk to, the food pyramid is outdated, at least the amounts you are supposed to eat. I'm pretty certain though that people know the difference between fruits, vegetables, meat, grains, and junk. I have yet to meet a person that doesn't know how to sort food. Well except for the sneaky tomato.

Also, a big mac does fit in the food pyramid. Meat, vegetables, dairy, and maybe fruit (again the tomato), it's all on the big mac and french fries (potatoes...er they're supposed to be anyway) are vegetables. The important thing they don't understand or don't care about is that the grease and processed goodness of it all is making it unhealthy.

Anyway, it's not so much that they don't know that the food is unhealthy, it is more that they don't know how to cook. It's amazes me how many people don't know how to cook and opt for take-out or pre-made foods. Of course, to cook you have to be able to read and do math...lack of education can hinder you from doing this even if you have the measuring cups.

Plus, if you are poor, do you really have the $50 to toss out for cheap pots and pans? It's expensive to get kitchen supplies.

jorgelito · 05-25-2007, 03:34 PM

There are other factors too.

1. If you aren't eating enough or healthy, doesn't the body store whatever food you do eat as fat in anticipation?

2. Some of the fat poor people (homeless people) may have a disease too. I'm not too sure, but I think there may be some disease or condition that causes a person to bloat or store fat even though they don't eat well or regularly. Kind of like the starving African kids with the distended bellies.

3. Eating poorly is a direct result of getting in a bad cycle. I have occasionally gone through this. When I am working too much, don't have enough time and exhausted all the time, I turn to McDs etc. Tyring to buy a little time at the expense of my health. During that cycle I look like crap - skin is bad, poor energy levels, and feel like crap from all the fat clogging my veins.

So it's not much of a stretch to see why poor people could end up in this situation. During one of my college years, I always gained 5-10 lbs during finals week. I would essentially not shave, bathe or change clothes for a week, staying up all night studying, and eating crappy. I looked like a homeless guy.

On addiction. I think cigarettes are the most addictive besides coffee. Heroin addicts quit heroin before they quit smoking. Quitting takes will power, discipline and commitment.

Charlatan · 05-25-2007, 05:22 PM

First off, I don't think it is just lower income people in the West that are fat. Obesity is a problem across all income strata.

Secondly, it isn't just fast food that is the issue. The issue is processed food. I cannot find the statistic now but I was reading recently that the average person needs roughly 1500 calories per day. To purchase 1500 calories of healthy, fresh food, costs around $5.00 to $6.00. To purchase the same 1500 calories in processed foods... $1.50 to $2.00.

Have a look at the supermarket the next time you are there. Have a look at how the food aisles are set up. Where are the healthy foods in relation to the processed foods? How are processed foods marketed vs. fresh?

Processed food is not only higher in calories, it is usually ready to consume (marketed as time saving).

High in the ingredients list of most processed foods is High Fructose Corn syrup (or other starches and sugars derived from corn). The US subsidy of the farming industry has left you with a massive surplus of corn that scientists have worked hard to find uses for. It has been used in everything from Coke and Cereal to Bread and Canned Goods.

The interesting thing is that it frequently isn't being used as a substitute for a previously used ingredient (like substituting cane sugar for corn sugar) but rather is being used in addition to the other substances (e.g. it is added to the top of mass produced bread to make sure it goes that lovely shade of golden brown).

The end result is higher calories and lesser quality foods at cheaper prices.

I haven't even got into the ideas of portion control, high starch diets being cheaper than low (i.e. pasta, potatoes, etc.), the deep fryer vs. baking, junk food for snacks... etc. The whole food supply and how it is consumed is problematic in the west.

Food is cheap there. Bad food is cheaper. You can eat excessive calories and stuff yourself and still be on a budget.

This has nothing to do with your income level.

abaya · 05-25-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Have a look at the supermarket the next time you are there. Have a look at how the food aisles are set up. Where are the healthy foods in relation to the processed foods? How are processed foods marketed vs. fresh? --snip-- Food is cheap there. Bad food is cheaper.

Charlatan is right on the money here. I spent last summer in the Philly ghetto (North Philly and West Philly) as an RA for this very issue, being a data gopher for a study on the nutritional environment of the urban poor. I visited every corner "grocery" in the lowest-income areas of the city, about 150-200 total stores. It was a hell of a lot of data. Part of the survey was to look at grocery display units and how much shelf space (and where) was for healthy vs. unhealthy stuff. I also recorded prices for 10-12 key items to compare across stores.

Thing was, there usually wasn't ANY shelf space for healthy food, because it didn't exist. Tasty Kakes were readily available (typically 20+ grams of fat in one muffin!), as was whole milk, white bread, non-baked chips, Stouffer's full-fat frozen dinners, high-sugar cereals, non-diet soft drinks, full-fat franks, and the like. There was usually some overripe, if not rotting fruit and tomatoes, though the supply of potatoes and onions was decent and plentiful. There was maybe one "supermarket" in the whole area, and you had to walk a hell of a long ways to get there (or take the bus... neither of which are very fun in 90+ degree weather with very high humidity).

My job was to check and see how many low-fat, healthy options there were for people in low-income areas. It turned out that there were almost none. In a few places, on the margins of the ghetto (near the gentrifying areas, or around colleges like Temple or Penn), there were shops with some healthier foods. But otherwise, it was all shit to eat. Occasionally I would find a loaf or two of whole-wheat bread, some good bananas, and low-fat milk... but these were usually on the edge of expiration, and when I asked the owners about why they didn't stock more, they said that the stuff never sold well and demand was low. People didn't seem to know or care about the healthy food, and it was usually more expensive anyway. They went with what they knew, what they grew up with... the Stouffer's meatloaf, Tasty Kakes, and gobs and gobs of high-fructose corn syrup, as Charlie said.

Now, this gives some evidence to the cultural debate and education levels, but it also points to income and the inability of many of the residents to afford the big supermarket and the means to get there. You could argue that they could kill two birds with one stone by walking 30 blocks to the supermarket and burning calories in the meantime, but shit... in a Philly summer? I don't think I'd even make it. Maybe it's culture and education. Maybe it's the built environment and the unwillingness of city planners to create a healthy living space and access to decent food in low-income areas. Maybe it's all of the above, added up with something else altogether.

But I saw it with my own eyes. And I don't know how many of us would act so differently, given the same circumstances.

Willravel · 05-25-2007, 05:45 PM

Calorie to calorie, yes it's cheaper.

Full to full? That's another story. An apple has, on average, 81 calories. A Big Mac without cheese has 576 calories. Imagine you had a choice: 1 Big Mac, or 7 apples. Which would fill you up more? I'd guess the apples.
1 Big Mac =
7 apples
6.6 bananas
7.5 heads of lettuce
9.6 pears

apple = $.56 per (at Safeway), x 7 = $3.92

I'm not sure how much a Big Mac is, but I think the point is clear. You can get more healthy food for cheaper.

snowy · 05-25-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.

That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

This is from the NYTimes Magazine in April. The entire article can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...a17c0e&ei=5070

Here are some other things to consider: our food supply systems into the inner cities of the United States do not work well. The availability of fresh produce in those areas is low. Consider NYC: most produce found at local bodegas is badly bruised and low-quality. Where is a poor person supposed to get their greens? This has led to an expansion of the NYC Greenmarket program, and allows users of food stamps to purchase produce at Greenmarkets. As far as I've read on the issue, that is really the only place for low-income residents to get good produce--the other choice is Whole Foods, and obviously an apple from Whole Foods is going to cost a lot more.

The fact is that it's a combination of lack of resources, lack of time, and lack of education about nutritional options and programs. People who work 40+ hours a week are exhausted at the end of the day, and and so they want to have foods that are easy to prepare. As Charlatan already pointed out, these prepared foods (the kind you find for cheap in the center aisles) are not the best nutritionally, but they are easy to make and don't require much skill. Lack of money leads them to choose something cheap, lack of time leads them to choose something fast, and lack of skill leads them to choose the easiest option. The fact is, modern American society is too busy working to learn how to cook--and this extends up into the middle class, as evidenced by the proliferation of outfits such as Dream Dinners and Super Suppers, and it's evidenced by a recent piece by Dr. Gupta on CNN about blaming working mothers for childhood obesity (Dr. Gupta's piece concluded that it was a variety of factors).

Economically speaking, the United States is putting a lot of people between a rock and a hard place regarding food quality and security. We are subsidizing hundreds of acres of crops that are going to do nothing but make us fat (thank you HFCS). With the decline in secure blue collar labor, the squeeze is on lower middle class families to have two working parents in order to make ends meet. Additionally, we are only beginning to increase access to locally grown crops and quality produce everywhere. Those of us who live in the suburbs take our sanitized Safeways for granted. The fact is, a great number of people in our country do not shop at Whole Foods or Safeway. They shop at Wal-Mart or the local corner store, because the first is cheaper and the second is easier and the most accessible. When you're exhausted, poor, and stressed out, you take a break where you can get it.

felixq78 · 05-25-2007, 06:46 PM

The idea that poor people are lazy is offensive. Taken to the next logical step you'd say that the poverty is self induced. A myth propagated by the rich to cover their responsibility.
Wealth causes poverty. The so called Third World wasn't poor until capitalism invaded and took its toll, sucking the life out of every country it bestowed with its benevolence.
You're not convinced? History will back me up but be careful of which historian you trust.
The Roman Empire, The British Empire The Empire of the US they're all responsible. Greed and capitalsim are one in the same, they oppose democracy it's their enemy.

Willravel · 05-25-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixq78

The idea that poor people are lazy is offensive. Taken to the next logical step you'd say that the poverty is self induced. A myth propagated by the rich to cover their responsibility.
Wealth causes poverty. The so called Third World wasn't poor until capitalism invaded and took its toll, sucking the life out of every country it bestowed with its benevolence.
You're not convinced? History will back me up but be careful of which historian you trust.
The Roman Empire, The British Empire The Empire of the US they're all responsible. Greed and capitalsim are one in the same, they oppose democracy it's their enemy.

Quoted for truth. Well put.

Charlatan · 05-25-2007, 07:10 PM

Here's the real question...

If farm subsidy didn't exist, and processed foods were not cheaper would the poor be able to afford to eat? If we had to pay the "real" cost of food, would the American way of life collapse?

Nesmall2 · 05-25-2007, 07:17 PM

actually being fat in other countries is becuase of inflammation, thats why they are really round in the stomach

atleast when you are poor and can't afford food

Baraka_Guru · 05-25-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Here's the real question...

If farm subsidy didn't exist, and processed foods were not cheaper would the poor be able to afford to eat? If we had to pay the "real" cost of food, would the American way of life collapse?

Yeah, I've heard that if they were to remove the subsidies doled out to meat producers, the cost of meat would at least double. And what sort of disparity do you think there is between the subsidies available to mass-producing meat/dairy farms vs. small sustainable organic legume/vegetable producers?

Also, I too believe that this whole issue isn't just about poor people. I think your risk of being overweight or obese is increased by a number of factors. Here's one example; below is an interesting list of stats:

Quote:

The Ubiquity of Modern TV and Other Facts to Ponder in a Mediated World

According to the A.C. Nielsen Co. (1998), the average American watches 3 hours and 46 minutes of TV each day (more than 52 days of non-stop TV-watching per year). By age 65, the average American will have spent nearly 9 years glued to the tube.

Lying Around the House

1. Percentage of U.S. homes with at least one television: 98
2. Hours per day that TV is on in the average American home: 7 hours and 12 minutes
3. Percentage of Americans that regularly watch TV while eating dinner: 66
4. Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
5. Number of videos rented daily in the United States: 6 million
6. Number of library items checked out daily: 3 million

Child's Play

1. Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900
2. Hours per year the average American Youth watches TV: 1500
3. Minutes per week that the average American child ages 2-11 watches TV: 1,197
4. Minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 38.5
5. Percentage of children ages 5-17 who have a TV in their bedroom: 52
6. Percentage of children ages 4-6 who, when asked to choose between watching TV or spending time with their fathers, preferred TV: 54

If It Bleeds, It Leads

1. Number of violent acts an average American child sees on TV by age 18: 200,000
2. Number of murders witnessed by children on TV by age 18: 16,000
3. Percentage of children polled who said they felt "upset" or "scared" by TV violence: 91
4. Percentage increase in network news coverage of homicide between 1990 and 1995: 336
5. Percent reduction in the American homicide rate between 1990 and 1995: 13
6. Percentage of all violent scenes in which the perpetrators go unpunished: 73

Where's the Beef?

1. Number of TV commercials seen each year by an average child: 30,000
2. Number of TV commercials seen by the average American by age 65: 2,000,000
3. Percent of Americans who believe "most of us buy and consume far more than we need": 82
4. Number of ads aired for "junk-food" during four hours of Saturday morning cartoons: 202
5. Percentage of American children ages 6-11 who were seriously overweight in 1963: 4.5
6. Percentage of American children ages 6-11 who were seriously overweight in 1993: 14

These facts are gathered from a variety of sources. Source citations are available on request. For an expanded version of this material please visit the TV Free America Web site.

Nearly four hours of TV a day?! No wonder there are so many problems. Everything is connected.

Kpax · 05-25-2007, 07:44 PM

Re: To topic starter...

Well, think of it this way: Maybe they aren't poor and "fat," but poor because they are "fat..."

I mean, I eat fastfood a lot, and it adds up quickly! A practical meal from Jack In the Box or McDonald's is $6.00 or more...

Grasshopper Green · 05-25-2007, 08:18 PM

Having worked for 2 supermarket chains, I'll tell you what the cheapest food is...it's not rice and beans, it's Top Ramen. It's store brand macaroni and cheese and store brand vienna sausages and store brand Hamburger Helper and Rice a roni. It's certainly not fresh produce and it's certainly not lean cuts of meat or quality cheese or milk. If you want cheap cheese, it's pastuerized processed cheese food. Store brand canned veggies are cheap too...but canned veggies have very little nutrition, though plenty of people don't know that. It's the same cost to buy a box of store brand cookies or crackers as 2 or 3 good sized apples, and if the cookies are on sale...it's cheaper. More "exotic" produce like melons, plums, oranges, decent tomatoes, actually pretty much anything but bananas, potatoes, or onions, are even more expensive than the apples (unless they are on sale). If you are looking to feed your family and get the most for your money, then that's what you buy...processed, easy to prepare foods that are full of fat, sugar, and preservatives.

When I was a cashier, I got to know a lot of my customers fairly well. I worked in a low income area, and many of the people held two jobs to support their families. Most weren't lazy; they were stressed, tired, and trying to make their dollar stretch as far as possible, regardless if they were fat or not.

seretogis · 05-25-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixq78

The idea that poor people are lazy is offensive. Taken to the next logical step you'd say that the poverty is self induced. A myth propagated by the rich to cover their responsibility.
Wealth causes poverty. The so called Third World wasn't poor until capitalism invaded and took its toll, sucking the life out of every country it bestowed with its benevolence.
You're not convinced? History will back me up but be careful of which historian you trust.
The Roman Empire, The British Empire The Empire of the US they're all responsible. Greed and capitalsim are one in the same, they oppose democracy it's their enemy.

That's one of the most mind-numbingly stupid things I have ever read. Capitalism is the cause of all of the world's peril, and yet it did not exist during the Roman empire, the British empire, the middle ages (unless you're suggesting the Dark Ages were a paradise for the little people), and it doesn't even exist today. Capitalism is not the cause of problems, people abusing government power to get favorable subsidies and bend the market in their favor is the cause of problems.

Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Quoted for truth. Well put.

lol.

pornclerk · 05-25-2007, 09:34 PM

I don't know if I am really buying the whole argument that poor people are fat. Where is this information coming from? If you see a fat person who is poorly dressed, it doesn't mean they are poor necessarily. I don't recall walking into a grocery store and thinking that the healthier foods are more expensive, in fact I think they are cheaper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

As you wish.

I disagree. Stupidity demands a focus on the short-term, whereas someone who is genuinely poor but isn't stupid NEEDS to focus on a plan to a) exist, b) continue their existence, c) most importantly IMPROVE their existence. The poor stay poor if they focus only on the short-term. I may not have a PhD in Poverty, but I've lived off of 90 cents of food a day for six months before in order to save funds. It is not an insurmountable task to plan a year ahead and work towards a goal of self-improvement, it simply takes determination, forethought, and a minimal bit of intelligence.

You should see the movie "The Pursuit of Happiness."

Baraka_Guru · 05-26-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medusa

Having worked for 2 supermarket chains, I'll tell you what the cheapest food is...it's not rice and beans, it's Top Ramen. It's store brand macaroni and cheese and store brand vienna sausages and store brand Hamburger Helper and Rice a roni.

Dainty Super Patna Long Grain Rice:
8kg. $7.69 ($0.10/100g)

Unico Black Beans:
398ml $0.99 ($0.18/100ml)

(Prices in $CDN)

...so, 100ml of rice (doubles when cooked) and 100ml of beans would cost $0.28 and could possibly be one serving. This would be even cheaper if you bought a large bag of dry beans instead of canned.

I don't recall seeing many deals for $0.28 boxes of mac and cheese (which require added milk and oil). And a serving of Ramen or sausages don't have the same balance of nutrients as rice and beans... they might even be more expensive than the rice and beans in this case, too. If people shopped in bulk and planned ahead, their food costs would plummet.

StellaLuna · 05-26-2007, 06:12 AM

pornclerk says:

Quote:

I don't know if I am really buying the whole argument that poor people are fat. Where is this information coming from? If you see a fat person who is poorly dressed, it doesn't mean they are poor necessarily. I don't recall walking into a grocery store and thinking that the healthier foods are more expensive, in fact I think they are cheaper.

Two different points there, pc. I work for social services here, in food stamps - now being called "nutrition assistance" - and I see a lot of overweight poor people. (There's also a difference between "poor" and "homeless", folks, but I'm seeing those terms used interchangeably on this board.) The healthy food is more expensive, certainly- it doesn't last nearly as long in the case of fresh vegetables and it's not as much "fun". I've been to the store at the same time as some of my clients, and have seen carts piled with crab legs and packages of steak, along with soda, chips, and ice cream. This is not to say all low-income households on assistance don't know how to shop or manage food money, but we (at DSS) see a lot of what some of you have been talking about-- nutritional understanding and the ability to stretch a food budget are lacking in most of our clients.

A university here is working on that- we're trying to explain nutrition, cheap and fast but healthy recipes, and how to stretch a meager amount of food benefit dollars- but it's hard to make some of the ideas stick. I know just how easy it is to buy ramen and have a quick, crappy, nutritionally empty meal rather than cook the rice and the beans. Back to the OP, though- this really is part of the problem. The "bad" food is easier and tastier, and you don't have to work for it.

lurkette · 05-26-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornclerk

I don't know if I am really buying the whole argument that poor people are fat. Where is this information coming from?

There have been a number of pretty well-validated studies linking low income and obesity:

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/8/670 (Conclusions: Obesity, diabetes mortality, and calorie consumption were associated with income inequality in developed countries. Increased nutritional problems may be a consequence of the psychosocial impact of living in a more hierarchical society.)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1448278 (from Finland - findings showing it's not just low income that's linked with obesity, but in fact obesity is linked with income as a gradient. Results. Compared with their normal-weight counterparts, obese women with higher education or in upper white-collar positions had significantly lower income; a smaller income disadvantage was seen in overweight women with secondary education and in manual workers. Excess body weight was not associated with income disadvantages in men.)

http://www.nber.org/digest/feb03/w9247.html ("The incidence of obesity is most prevalent among those sectors of the workforce (chiefly low-end wage earners, women, non-whites) whose real income has fallen even as more hours are devoted to work.")

It's not just in the US - I found studies from Thailand, Finland (above), the UK, Canada, etc.

We're not just making this up based on anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

I don't recall walking into a grocery store and thinking that the healthier foods are more expensive, in fact I think they are cheaper.

I think this has been pretty well addressed by posts above. You might think they're cheaper, but you're wrong.

seretogis · 05-26-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornclerk

You should see the movie "The Pursuit of Happiness."

Actually I heard the story back in middle school in 1994, before it was made into a book / movie. Unfortunately, at that point, it was being used as justification (by teachers, to students) for an expanded welfare program even though Gardner was NOT a welfare recipient. I pride my politically-motivated public school teachers for pushing me towards libertarianism with their arguments that didn't even make sense to a middle schooler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I think this has been pretty well addressed by posts above. You might think they're cheaper, but you're wrong.

There are cheaper, healthier, alternatives to fast food. They may require a little preparation (cooking a ham, slicing it up and saving it for sandwiches for instance) but they ARE cheaper and healthier than a Big Mac.

Any time that you look for convenience you will be sacrificing something for it. This is true of anything. Use an ATM? You sacrifice practically all customer service you would receive if you went into a bank and spoke with a bank teller. Buy pre-sliced, pre-cooked sandwich meat? You are sacrificing some healthiness thanks to preservatives and such in exchange for being able to take it right out of the package.

Anyone who understands that "nothing is free" will comprehend this trade-off. Unfortunately Welfare-State programs reduce our most-poor to a state in which they expect things for free, and feel they are entitled to them. Therefore, they do not understand the notion of trade-offs, of positive and negatives, of working to better themselves physically and economically.

World's King · 05-26-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Americans are also bad at their native language.

Hey... I just woke up...

And I never said I was perfect.

jbw97361 · 05-26-2007, 10:37 AM

Personally, I think that the whole Atkins bullshit has something to do with it. From listening to my average intelligence parents talk about how fruit is bad because it contains carbs, and a big greasy pile of bacon is ok. I can completely understand why there are so many fat people out there. These people who eat at McDonalds and think they are doing themselves a favor by throwing out half the bun are just fooling themselves and buying into another simple but wrong solution.

StellaLuna · 05-26-2007, 11:03 AM

seretogis says:

Quote:

Unfortunately Welfare-State programs reduce our most-poor to a state in which they expect things for free, and feel they are entitled to them. Therefore, they do not understand the notion of trade-offs, of positive and negatives, of working to better themselves physically and economically.

You're speaking in incredibly broad and offensive generalizations here, seretogis. "They" are a diverse group of people who fall into many different levels of poverty. "They" are not always the lazy, shiftless, unwashed masses many people think of when they hear the word "poor". What do you make, then, of the families with 3 children on SSI (supplemental security income, a type of disability payment) because they are all sick from lead-poisoning, and mom has to stay home with them while dad works a minimum wage job to meet rent? Or the homeless guy living in the park who is suffering from severe schizophrenia? Don't "they" deserve some level of assistance to help with daily needs? I feel like a bleeding-heart here, but I see it every single day. Many of our "most-poor" are not even entitled to the benefits they seek due to federal regulations. I understand and agree with those who want a "work-for-welfare" program, but there are certain situations in which assistance is required and is often the only way "they" are going to make it through the day.

abaya · 05-26-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Do you think that working 50-60 hours a week shows lack of determination, forethought, and intelligence? Do you think that working 2-3 manual laboring jobs suggests laziness? Is it morally wrong to want things to be convenient, even when they go against your long-term interests?

Sorry to bother you again, Seretogis... but could you answer my questions, since I was responding to your post? As well as address the numerous posts quoting scientifically valid and reliable studies that have been done (including my visits to 150+ ghetto groceries). Would be most helpful, thanks.

filtherton · 05-26-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbw97361

Personally, I think that the whole Atkins bullshit has something to do with it. From listening to my average intelligence parents talk about how fruit is bad because it contains carbs, and a big greasy pile of bacon is ok. I can completely understand why there are so many fat people out there. These people who eat at McDonalds and think they are doing themselves a favor by throwing out half the bun are just fooling themselves and buying into another simple but wrong solution.

This may be tangential to the thread, but atkins does work for some people. I know of at least one person who couldn't lose weight running 15 miles a week, but lost weight with little difficulty on atkins.

Telluride · 05-26-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Maybe it's because some poor people are lazy, which make them both fat and poor. They can spend $4 on McDonalds, or they can spend $4 on a loaf of bread, some sliced meat, and a head of lettuce, and make sandwiches for a week which are a fuck-load more healthy.

How about we examine the choices, intentions, and lifestyle of those who are considered "victims" before we go after third parties with completely baseless accusations of wrong-doing. It is not McDonald's fault if you're fat. It's your fault, because you are fucking eating at McDonald's.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. There have been times in my life where I ate pretty much nothing but junk food and, at this point in my life, I'm eating a fairly balanced diet. I think the big knock against healthy food is that it's often more difficult to make. Most "convenience" foods (like fast food, microwaveable stuff, etc.) tend to be unhealthy. My grocery bill is actually lower now that my girlfriend and I are buying healthy food and cooking.

seretogis · 05-26-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Do you think that working 50-60 hours a week shows lack of determination, forethought, and intelligence? Do you think that working 2-3 manual laboring jobs suggests laziness? Is it morally wrong to want things to be convenient, even when they go against your long-term interests?

Um, I have worked more than 60 hours / week. It is a part of having a salary programming job. Working 2-3 manual labor jobs is fine if that is all that you can do, however everyone should be working to improve their particular "station" in life. If you work 60 hours a week on an assembly line bolting things together and never work towards something higher, requiring more skill, etc. you WILL be replaced by someone cheaper, or robotics.

Stagnation suggests laziness, and lack of forethought / determination / intelligence. If I did nothing but go to work at 9am and leave at 5pm, doing the same job over and over for 10 years, I would be lazy. Luckily, I constantly have a project or three going on the side in hopes of expanding my skillset and becoming a more valuable asset to myself in the process.

A relevant link/story:

http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/The-Indexer.aspx click to show

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Sorry to bother you again, Seretogis... but could you answer my questions, since I was responding to your post? As well as address the numerous posts quoting scientifically valid and reliable studies that have been done (including my visits to 150+ ghetto groceries). Would be most helpful, thanks.

I didn't bother responding to those since they present a chicken-and-egg scenario. Are they offering those less healthy alternatives because there is a demand for them, or is there a demand for them because they are being offered? Is it the responsibility of grocers to not stock unhealthy products (and go out of business) because their customers are too stupid to learn about what they are ingesting? Is it the responsibility of the grocers to drive people away, to competitors, by suggesting that what they are selling you is bad for you? Businesses sell what they can make money off of. If there is no demand for healthy food, they will sell little of it. Create the demand, and watch the selection at those stores change.

vanblah · 05-26-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

d'jever notice lots of "poor" people are fat? why is that? you would think being poor would mean they are starving, and so they would be skinny. a few hundred years ago, being fat meant you were wealthy and well off, a status symbol, and now only the "rich" seem to be able to be thin.

You should walk around the campus that I work at. It's a fairly upscale private college (tuition = $35, 000 to $40,000 a year). There are not a lot of poor people here (a few on scholarships etc.). My wife and I were remarking the other day about how fat the students are. Obviously, not all of them are fat... but enough that we noticed it.

So let me rephrase for you

: "d'jever notice that lots of <s>"poor"</s> people are fat?" The reasons have been discussed throughout this thread many times. Although, addiction is probably too strong a word ... habit is a better word ... poor eating habits.

Taco Bell's Crunchwrap Supreme is awesome (I love 'em) ... but the 700+ calorie cost is just not worth it to me (not to mention the artery clogging). Yet, I see people eating them every day at lunch. Add the 32 oz. of Mountain Dew that most students drink and you're talking a 1000+ calorie lunch. Then there's the snacks and Starbucks drinks.

You get my point. These kids can AFFORD to eat healthy; presumably they have a pretty good education since they are going to this particular school and yet they STILL eat badly.

roachboy · 05-26-2007, 12:41 PM

it seems to me that there is abundant information already in this thread to show that what is clearly lazy and stupid is the idea that anything about either poverty of obesity--not to mention their intertwining--can be explained by saying that the poor are lazy and stupid.

lurkette · 05-26-2007, 01:51 PM

Blaming the poor for their own plight is a tasty little ideological morsel that lets us all off the hook and blurs the lines of a complex situation. Every time we get into this argument it always comes back to the same face-off: Argument 1: people are 100% responsible for their own situation; Argument 2: social factors overwhelm individual choice, making it harder to choose your own path.

IT'S ALWAYS BOTH/AND, PEOPLE!!!

It's a poor excuse for a society that doesn't have some kind of back-up plan for when Plan A (100% personal responsibility) doesn't work, and it never will. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes (say, an average-intelligence kid born into a dysfunctional family with limited means) and see how much indomitable free will you feel like you have. It's difficult to make educated choices that are in your best interest when the options and information at hand are somewhat limited by institutional and social factors beyond your control.

squeeeb · 05-26-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanblah

You should walk around the campus that I work at. It's a fairly upscale private college (tuition = $35, 000 to $40,000 a year). There are not a lot of poor people here (a few on scholarships etc.). My wife and I were remarking the other day about how fat the students are. Obviously, not all of them are fat... but enough that we noticed it.

So let me rephrase for you

: "d'jever notice that lots of <s>"poor"</s> people are fat?" The reasons have been discussed throughout this thread many times. Although, addiction is probably too strong a word ... habit is a better word ... poor eating habits.

Taco Bell's Crunchwrap Supreme is awesome (I love 'em) ... but the 700+ calorie cost is just not worth it to me (not to mention the artery clogging). Yet, I see people eating them every day at lunch. Add the 32 oz. of Mountain Dew that most students drink and you're talking a 1000+ calorie lunch. Then there's the snacks and Starbucks drinks.

You get my point. These kids can AFFORD to eat healthy; presumably they have a pretty good education since they are going to this particular school and yet they STILL eat badly.

i agree with you totally, no big secret, most americans are overweight. my original point, though, was why are "poor" people, who technically can't afford lots of food, overweight, when they technically should be starving and thin....

Baraka_Guru · 05-27-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

...my original point, though, was why are "poor" people, who technically can't afford lots of food, overweight, when they technically should be starving and thin....

I think the problem, then, is that your idea of "poor" is extreme. When think of poor, you think of "destitute," which is extreme poverty (i.e. often homeless and unemployed). In this situation, yes, it would be hard to find food to eat, and, yes, one might end up dying of starvation. Although there are too many cases of destitution, there are also many cases of other forms of poverty. When you see a "fat poor person," they may be gainfully employed and have access to food and shelter, but this does not mean they aren't impoverished. Although food may not be a life-threatening problem, living below the poverty line may bar one from any or all of the following:

Health care
Sanitation
Post-secondary education
Safe neighbourhoods
Certain opportunities for employment
Social groups
Cultural events (such as films, concerts, etc.)

I'm sure there are more. The problems that arise from poverty when you consider food aren't necessarily related to access; they are often related to education, time resources, and emotions. It isn't easy being poor.

abaya · 05-27-2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

If I did nothing but go to work at 9am and leave at 5pm, doing the same job over and over for 10 years, I would be lazy.

Interesting viewpoint. So laziness = a normal level of ambition? If someone does what they need to do to live comfortably, does that mean that they're lazy? Maybe this doesn't relate to the OP at all, but I guess I don't understand your definition of lazy. Does someone always have to be moving up in a career in order to not be lazy? What about small business owners who do the same thing for 10 years? They're not "moving up," but they're getting by just fine, providing for their families and paying their taxes. Does that mean they're lazy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Is it the responsibility of grocers to not stock unhealthy products (and go out of business) because their customers are too stupid to learn about what they are ingesting?

Once again, confusion on definitions here. So, stupid = uneducated, with inequitable access to resources? I still do not understand how one's economic status say anything about one's level of intelligence... but, I suppose that's something we won't be agreeing on anytime soon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem convinced that "poor people" are, in effect, lazy and stupid.

filtherton · 05-27-2007, 06:49 AM

Seretogis, how do you explain fat rich people? Obviously they aren't lazy or stupid because they are rich, so how come they're fat?

05-25-2007, 05:22 PM	#50 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	First off, I don't think it is just lower income people in the West that are fat. Obesity is a problem across all income strata. Secondly, it isn't just fast food that is the issue. The issue is processed food. I cannot find the statistic now but I was reading recently that the average person needs roughly 1500 calories per day. To purchase 1500 calories of healthy, fresh food, costs around $5.00 to $6.00. To purchase the same 1500 calories in processed foods... $1.50 to $2.00. Have a look at the supermarket the next time you are there. Have a look at how the food aisles are set up. Where are the healthy foods in relation to the processed foods? How are processed foods marketed vs. fresh? Processed food is not only higher in calories, it is usually ready to consume (marketed as time saving). High in the ingredients list of most processed foods is High Fructose Corn syrup (or other starches and sugars derived from corn). The US subsidy of the farming industry has left you with a massive surplus of corn that scientists have worked hard to find uses for. It has been used in everything from Coke and Cereal to Bread and Canned Goods. The interesting thing is that it frequently isn't being used as a substitute for a previously used ingredient (like substituting cane sugar for corn sugar) but rather is being used in addition to the other substances (e.g. it is added to the top of mass produced bread to make sure it goes that lovely shade of golden brown). The end result is higher calories and lesser quality foods at cheaper prices. I haven't even got into the ideas of portion control, high starch diets being cheaper than low (i.e. pasta, potatoes, etc.), the deep fryer vs. baking, junk food for snacks... etc. The whole food supply and how it is consumed is problematic in the west. Food is cheap there. Bad food is cheaper. You can eat excessive calories and stuff yourself and still be on a budget. This has nothing to do with your income level. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-25-2007, 07:10 PM	#56 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Here's the real question... If farm subsidy didn't exist, and processed foods were not cheaper would the poor be able to afford to eat? If we had to pay the "real" cost of food, would the American way of life collapse? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-25-2007, 07:17 PM	#57 (permalink)
Nesmall2 Upright	actually being fat in other countries is becuase of inflammation, thats why they are really round in the stomach atleast when you are poor and can't afford food Last edited by Nesmall2; 05-25-2007 at 07:18 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-25-2007, 08:18 PM	#60 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	Having worked for 2 supermarket chains, I'll tell you what the cheapest food is...it's not rice and beans, it's Top Ramen. It's store brand macaroni and cheese and store brand vienna sausages and store brand Hamburger Helper and Rice a roni. It's certainly not fresh produce and it's certainly not lean cuts of meat or quality cheese or milk. If you want cheap cheese, it's pastuerized processed cheese food. Store brand canned veggies are cheap too...but canned veggies have very little nutrition, though plenty of people don't know that. It's the same cost to buy a box of store brand cookies or crackers as 2 or 3 good sized apples, and if the cookies are on sale...it's cheaper. More "exotic" produce like melons, plums, oranges, decent tomatoes, actually pretty much anything but bananas, potatoes, or onions, are even more expensive than the apples (unless they are on sale). If you are looking to feed your family and get the most for your money, then that's what you buy...processed, easy to prepare foods that are full of fat, sugar, and preservatives. When I was a cashier, I got to know a lot of my customers fairly well. I worked in a low income area, and many of the people held two jobs to support their families. Most weren't lazy; they were stressed, tired, and trying to make their dollar stretch as far as possible, regardless if they were fat or not. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa Last edited by Grasshopper Green; 05-25-2007 at 08:27 PM..

05-26-2007, 10:37 AM	#68 (permalink)
jbw97361 Tilted	Personally, I think that the whole Atkins bullshit has something to do with it. From listening to my average intelligence parents talk about how fruit is bad because it contains carbs, and a big greasy pile of bacon is ok. I can completely understand why there are so many fat people out there. These people who eat at McDonalds and think they are doing themselves a favor by throwing out half the bun are just fooling themselves and buying into another simple but wrong solution. __________________ JBW

05-25-2007, 02:16 PM	#46 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Good point, dirtyrascal. I've never even seen a commercial for apples (cept for those trendy iPod commercials).

05-25-2007, 02:29 PM	#47 (permalink)
cyklone Crazy Location: Adelaide, South Australia	Why is is that the only poor people who are fat live in the Western world. You certainly don't see too many fat poor people in third world countries. That would tend to indicate that there is a factor other than just being poor, for instance perhaps it is more about the type of food that is easily available to poorer people, the culture within the lower socio-economic classes or the education of poorer people. Then again, perhaps it is not that poor people are fat in the west, but that fat people are poor because they are too bloody lazy to get off their fat arses.

05-25-2007, 03:34 PM	#49 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	There are other factors too. 1. If you aren't eating enough or healthy, doesn't the body store whatever food you do eat as fat in anticipation? 2. Some of the fat poor people (homeless people) may have a disease too. I'm not too sure, but I think there may be some disease or condition that causes a person to bloat or store fat even though they don't eat well or regularly. Kind of like the starving African kids with the distended bellies. 3. Eating poorly is a direct result of getting in a bad cycle. I have occasionally gone through this. When I am working too much, don't have enough time and exhausted all the time, I turn to McDs etc. Tyring to buy a little time at the expense of my health. During that cycle I look like crap - skin is bad, poor energy levels, and feel like crap from all the fat clogging my veins. So it's not much of a stretch to see why poor people could end up in this situation. During one of my college years, I always gained 5-10 lbs during finals week. I would essentially not shave, bathe or change clothes for a week, staying up all night studying, and eating crappy. I looked like a homeless guy. On addiction. I think cigarettes are the most addictive besides coffee. Heroin addicts quit heroin before they quit smoking. Quitting takes will power, discipline and commitment.

05-25-2007, 05:45 PM	#52 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Calorie to calorie, yes it's cheaper. Full to full? That's another story. An apple has, on average, 81 calories. A Big Mac without cheese has 576 calories. Imagine you had a choice: 1 Big Mac, or 7 apples. Which would fill you up more? I'd guess the apples. 1 Big Mac = 7 apples 6.6 bananas 7.5 heads of lettuce 9.6 pears apple = $.56 per (at Safeway), x 7 = $3.92 I'm not sure how much a Big Mac is, but I think the point is clear. You can get more healthy food for cheaper.

05-25-2007, 06:46 PM	#54 (permalink)
felixq78 Upright	The idea that poor people are lazy is offensive. Taken to the next logical step you'd say that the poverty is self induced. A myth propagated by the rich to cover their responsibility. Wealth causes poverty. The so called Third World wasn't poor until capitalism invaded and took its toll, sucking the life out of every country it bestowed with its benevolence. You're not convinced? History will back me up but be careful of which historian you trust. The Roman Empire, The British Empire The Empire of the US they're all responsible. Greed and capitalsim are one in the same, they oppose democracy it's their enemy.

05-25-2007, 07:44 PM	#59 (permalink)
Kpax Crazy Location: Washington	Re: To topic starter... Well, think of it this way: Maybe they aren't poor and "fat," but poor because they are "fat..." I mean, I eat fastfood a lot, and it adds up quickly! A practical meal from Jack In the Box or McDonald's is $6.00 or more...

05-26-2007, 12:41 PM	#75 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems to me that there is abundant information already in this thread to show that what is clearly lazy and stupid is the idea that anything about either poverty of obesity--not to mention their intertwining--can be explained by saying that the poor are lazy and stupid. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-26-2007, 01:51 PM	#76 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Blaming the poor for their own plight is a tasty little ideological morsel that lets us all off the hook and blurs the lines of a complex situation. Every time we get into this argument it always comes back to the same face-off: Argument 1: people are 100% responsible for their own situation; Argument 2: social factors overwhelm individual choice, making it harder to choose your own path. IT'S ALWAYS BOTH/AND, PEOPLE!!! It's a poor excuse for a society that doesn't have some kind of back-up plan for when Plan A (100% personal responsibility) doesn't work, and it never will. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes (say, an average-intelligence kid born into a dysfunctional family with limited means) and see how much indomitable free will you feel like you have. It's difficult to make educated choices that are in your best interest when the options and information at hand are somewhat limited by institutional and social factors beyond your control. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

05-27-2007, 06:49 AM	#80 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Seretogis, how do you explain fat rich people? Obviously they aren't lazy or stupid because they are rich, so how come they're fat?