The Jedi Academy. THE Place for Jedi training.
Forums
Content
The Academy
Learn
Communicate
Personal


Forums | Crazy Stuff
Obesity lawsuit resurrected
Jan 27 2005 08:10am

JavaGuy
 - Student
JavaGuy
God help us.


_______________
My signature is only one line. You're welcome.

  Login and add your comment! Previous Comments >
Comments
Feb 04 2005 02:50pm

JavaGuy
 - Student
 JavaGuy

William Penn famously remarked that you protect people from foolishness, you will soon have a nation of fools.

I could give lots of economic examples from recent events of what he was talking about, but I too have rambled a lot on this subject, and I think you already get the point. :)
_______________
My signature is only one line. You're welcome.

Feb 04 2005 07:04am

3th
 - Retired
 3th

very nice post :) yeah, i agree with ya man. we're damn lucky around here compared to 90% or more of the world.

i think another issue also related to all of this is there's a connection to being uneducated or uninformed about important things that will affect one's life. i think this is related to what you said about making bad decisions. i think the uneducated (in the broadest sense) make bad decisions about their health, they think it makes sense to spend their hard earned money on a big mac for their dinner. when like buzz has pointed out it'd be far better to spend the money at the grocery store. so in some ways i do think their is value in people bitching about how bad mc donald's is for you over and over. sure it gets very, very, old, annoying, and redundant for those of us who "get it". but i think it's an overall positive effect for the portion of the population that can't seems to answer the questions leno asks on his "jay walking" segment! :D

so yeah i guess in some ways i'm advocating that we put up with a sort of socialism for the greater good of the stupid people. why? the benefits might show up in lower health insurance premiums, more profuctive workers, etc. so...anyway, i dunno where i'm going with this. so i'll stop rambling :P
_______________
this is the internet, be serious damn it!

This comment was edited by 3th on Feb 04 2005 07:06am.

Feb 03 2005 02:14pm

JavaGuy
 - Student
 JavaGuy

3th,
I think you missed my point entirely: The "poor" in America are rather wealthy by the standards of people all around the world. The "poor" in America are wealthy by the standards of their own grandparents, who themselves were wealthy by the standards of most people alive even today.

Poverty means not having enough. It is oxymoronic to speak of a poor person being fat. Obesity means a person can afford to consume, for example, 3,000 Calories a day when he only needs 2,500. Yes, a poor person in America can easily afford to consume 3,000 or 4,000 Calories a day. Or 10,000 for that matter. But he doesn't have to.

And it's true that there's a close correlation between wealth and health, but here too the "poor" in America are doing much better than people have done historically. Some groups in America have an expected life spand of 60 years. Low? Yes, but also much, much, much higher than even the "rich" expected no so long ago. The "poor" today get free vaccinations and have indoor plumbing. Most people take indoor plumbing for granted, but it is responsible for most of the increase in life spans we saw during the 20th century. The "rich" in 1900 couldn't afford vaccinations at any price. The "poor" today get them. Obviously standards of living have skyrocketed.

There are two problems with how most people think of "rich" and "poor," especially in America.

The first is that the definition of "poverty" keeps changing. What is considered rich today will be considered poor in a few years. People who considered themselves rich, and were considered rich by others, in 1800 had a standard of living that people in 1900 would consider poor. Economic growth had raised real incomes enormously, so even an unskilled laborer could afford so much more. But most people think only in terms of envy: If I have a lot less than my neighbor, then I'm "poor."

Different government agencies define the so-called "poverty line" differently, but many cut it at an annual income of, I believe, around $17,000 a year for a family of four. Pretty poor, right? Actually if you adjust it for inflation that's a level of income that was considered comfortably middle class thirty years ago. That "poor" family has trouble living on the 17k because it spends money on amazing, wonderous things that were not even available to the "middle class" family 30 years ago. The "poor" today own computers, have Internet access, often cable or satellite. Look at the standard of living enjoyed by your yuppie neighbors today: That same standard of living will be considered "poverty" thirty years from now. Adjust for inflation and you'll discover that the so-called "poverty line" keeps being moved in order to define richer and richer and richer people as "poor."

The average "poor" family owns a car. Think about this. By historical standards, a car is practically frickin' magical. Owning a car is, to many people on this planet, like owning a space shuttle would be to me. Americans enjoy an astonishingly luxurious standard of living, but those of us who were born into the Age of Plenty are so spoiled that we don't know how good we have it. Anyone who has less than his neighbor thinks he's poor and downtrodden. Here's a newsflash for you: Most people in history worked upwards of 12 hours a day and got barely enough (not too much) to eat.

The second problem with how people think of "rich" and "poor" is that they think people are born into one category or the other and are obligated to stay there. The truth is that America has the greatest income mobility of any culture in the history of the world. When people speak of these "different" groups they are almost always speaking of the same people at different times of their lives.

To give an example, much was made of how many millions lived below the so-called "poverty line" (see above) at the beginning of the Reagan administration, and how this number had not decreased after several years of the Reagan boom. This was used to decry the Reagan boom and to suggest that it benefited only the rich. But the truth was that the millions who had those lower incomes at the end of the Reagan years were not the same people who had lower incomes at the beginning. The statistics were twisted to make it look like the poor remained poor, when in reality most of those "poor" had moved into higher income brackets while millions of poor people from other countries immigrated to the U.S., thus keeping the number of poor high. This trend continues today.

Most lower-income people (the "poor";) in America are simply young people. They have not yet acquired the job experience they need to make more. Working at McDonald's they still enjoy a much higher standard of living than most people in most places throughout most of human history, but no, they will not make nearly as much money as a guy in his 30s or 40s. Also, young people have not yet started building their nest-egg, so they don't have investment income either. But it's nonsense to speak of some "great divide" between these "poor" and "rich" when these "poor" and "rich" people are the exact same people at different times of their lives.

The real problem of poverty in America is chronic poverty, continuing poverty throughout one's whole life, which is actaully a tiny, tiny percentage of the population. (And again, many of these "poor" have it pretty damn good compared to how many people in the world live.) There are two causes of chronic poverty. One is disability, again a small percentage, and with these people I sympathize. If someone is actually too disabled to work, my heart cries out for him. We do have government programs and lots of charities to help--Americans are a generous people as well as a wealthy people--but nothing can really make up for being completely disabled. That's gotta suck.

But the more common cause--far more common--of chronic poverty in America is simply bad decision making. People choose not to work, which means more than just a loss of income but also a loss of ability to gain new job skills. Some people on government assistance don't want to get low-paying jobs because they get a better deal from the government. They don't understand that a low-paying job turns into a higher-paying job as they gain experience, especially if they work hard. You're not locked into a fixed level of income for life: Get a job, and your fortunes will rise. Bad decision-making also takes the form of drug use, heavy drinking, abuse of credit cards. I own a rental property and have had to evict three different tenants because they didn't pay the rent. These were not people who could not work. In every single case, when they were thrown out they owned new or fairly new giant-screen televisions. One of them was arrested for drug use, and another I suspected of drug use. Bad decision-making.

Much is made of the "haves" and "have-nots" but few people want to talk about the Doers and the Do-Nots in America. The bottom line is this: If you are not disabled, there is no reason to be poor in America. If you're young, you're going to struggle for a few years, but you'll get enough to eat. And if you make bad decisions, learn from them! I've made plenty, believe me.
_______________
My signature is only one line. You're welcome.

Feb 03 2005 10:11am

3th
 - Retired
 3th

i don't really disagree with any of that either buzz. just making a point about the link between health and wealth.

oh, and i'll be sure to let you know how my subscription to Blind Tibetan Monk and Mute Chinese Nun Cuisine Monthly treats me :D
_______________
this is the internet, be serious damn it!

This comment was edited by 3th on Feb 03 2005 10:17am.

Feb 03 2005 05:47am

Buzz
 - Student
 Buzz

Well 3th I wasn't talking about buying food and buying healthier food at a store. I'm talking about buying Fast food and buying food at a store. Any food. It doesn't have to be the "ultra high quality trendy health food grown by blind tibetan monks and mute chinese nuns" for you to still eat right. You can afford the regular ordinary food and make your own meals for a fraction of the price it would cost you to buy that many meals at a fast food place. And the groundchuck you buy and if you cook it properly would probably have less fat and calories than the quarterpounders you get at McDonald's.
_______________
When you are going through Hell, keep going.
-Sir Winston Churchill.

Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it.


Feb 03 2005 04:59am

3th
 - Retired
 3th

i wouldn't dispute that at all Buzz. nor JG, would i try to argue food is not plentiful and easy to come by.

the point i was trying to make to is that your "loaf of bread, a gallon of milk and some meat" falls into two categories.

scenario one: 24oz loaf white bread: $1.05; gallon of milk: $2.55; and normal fat content ground beef: $2.29/lb

scenario two: 24oz loaf whole grain wheat bread: $3.09; gallon of organic milk: $?; and extra lean ground beef: $3.29/lb

i can't find any prices on organic milk vs. regular milk but this url talks about potential health benefits of it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4153951.stm (admittedly they say chances are you don't NEED to drink the organic milk to get the vitamins it's higher in than non "organic" milk, but it IS more healthful.)

i'm sure you can imagine it's costs more than regular milk though :D

anyway, my point is that IMO it's easy to see that a healthier grocery list can easily cost you twice as much as the cheap route. thus putting lower income individuals at an economic disadvantage when it comes to making dietary choices that will affect their health.

i guess my whole point JG, is what were you trying to get at when ya said this:
Quote:
Almost every week you can see some magazine article bemoaning the fact that poor people in America are more likely to be fat. Excuse me? Poor people are fat? Then they're not poor!


i guess i'm just trying to have an interesting debate that isn't about politics :D
_______________
this is the internet, be serious damn it!

This comment was edited by 3th on Feb 03 2005 05:05am.

Feb 02 2005 03:53pm

Buzz
 - Student
 Buzz

Sowe, in America you can buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk and some meat, all for about $10 at a grocery story. And that's pushing how much it would cost. That's reasonably healthy and you can make more than 3 meals with those products. At McDonald's $10 would almost be pushing being able to buy 3 meals there.
_______________
When you are going through Hell, keep going.
-Sir Winston Churchill.

Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it.


Feb 02 2005 02:27pm

Aayla Secura
 - Ex-Student
 Aayla Secura

Yes,

p1. The healthier food costs more than fatty rubbish food

p2. Poorer ppl go for the cheaper choice - the fatty rubbish food

c. Therefore they become unhealthy.

And don’t get me started on the divide between rich and poor in America.
_______________
IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE!

This comment was edited by Aayla Secura on Feb 02 2005 02:34pm.

Feb 02 2005 10:22am

JavaGuy
 - Student
 JavaGuy

What's your point exactly? You're disputing that food is plentiful and affordable?


_______________
My signature is only one line. You're welcome.

Feb 02 2005 09:12am

3th
 - Retired
 3th

Quote:
Historically the problem has been that people do not have enough food. In America today food is plentiful and affordable to everyone. Almost every week you can see some magazine article bemoaning the fact that poor people in America are more likely to be fat. Excuse me? Poor people are fat? Then they're not poor! Next we'll be hearing that poor people have too much money.


check out the price of 95% lean ground chuck vs 80% lean ground chuck next time you're at the grocery store.

am i going to buy the 100% juice Juicy Juice for my kids that cost $4 for a gallon, or buy the purple high fructose corn syrup water for $.50 a gallon. hmmm...

come on JG you're smarter than that, follow the issue with your brain not your heart ;)
_______________
this is the internet, be serious damn it!

Feb 02 2005 08:30am

Ashyr
 - Student
 Ashyr

Yay! I'm not the only one who thinks Micheal Moore is a yammering ignoramous! :D

Anyway, funny stuff. I love it when people always try to blame other people for their problems.
_______________
Top ten reasons to get a better computer...|My fan

Feb 02 2005 01:00am

JavaGuy
 - Student
 JavaGuy

What exactly is "not true?"

_______________
My signature is only one line. You're welcome.

Feb 01 2005 10:01pm

Aayla Secura
 - Ex-Student
 Aayla Secura

No true, well not here In England it costs more to buy healthy prepared food, whereas you don’t have to pay as much for fast food, hence the name hence why ppl eat it, that and the fact its packed with loads of sugar…

But I don’t think its right to sue for your own lack of control

_______________
IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE!

Feb 01 2005 06:19pm

JavaGuy
 - Student
 JavaGuy

Actually, if you were Michael Moore, you'd have interviewed someone from McDonald's, asked several questions and then creatively edited the film to make it look like his answers were something completely different. A la Farenheit 911.

But back to obesity...Does anybody seriously think that McDonald's is to blame for somebody being fat? A fat guy knows he's fat. He knows fast food isn't the solution to this problem.

Historically the problem has been that people do not have enough food. In America today food is plentiful and affordable to everyone. Almost every week you can see some magazine article bemoaning the fact that poor people in America are more likely to be fat. Excuse me? Poor people are fat? Then they're not poor! Next we'll be hearing that poor people have too much money.
_______________
My signature is only one line. You're welcome.

Feb 01 2005 04:36pm

Buzz
 - Student
 Buzz

That's right, and if I were making a documentary on the subject all I would have said was democrats blocked the legislation to stop obesity lawsuits. Since that's a fact and the only real hard fact, and it won't lead anyone to influence one way or another.

But since I'm not making a documentary: Trial lawyers stand to make a lot of money off of obesity lawsuits, and trial lawyers are big donators of the democrats. Those are both facts as well but not as pertinent to the obesity lawsuits. Now because of this other information, you could assume that the democrats were stopping the legislation to make them illegal because they want to get their money from the lawsuits as well.

Now if I were Michael Moore, or the guy from Super-size Me, I would have just said that the Democrats blocked the legislation because they would get money from the lawsuits. And then give the "facts" to this. That's the method: fact, fact, fact given to people. And then with the facts given: Big twist of the facts to suit the purpose. Its not a real lie because its based on factual information, but since its presented as fact, that makes it a lie.

_______________
When you are going through Hell, keep going.
-Sir Winston Churchill.

Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it.


Feb 01 2005 03:54pm

JavaGuy
 - Student
 JavaGuy

Vaughn,
You need to look up the meaning of "ad hominem."

Buzz did cite a specific example of how the Democrats are at fault for this. They blocked legislation that would have prevented it. Case closed.
_______________
My signature is only one line. You're welcome.

Feb 01 2005 06:00am

Vaughn
 - Student
 Vaughn

whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA!!!

Stop with the Ad Hominem people! Until you provide facutal EVIDENCE that its someone's fault, dont be blaming people! wow. how many philosophers are in the house? (seriously)

PS: logic fallacies!
_______________
When you become an actor, you become the person, and you dont act anymore. You just are.
- Tyler HP, Taught by Mr G Simpson


This comment was edited by Vaughn on Feb 01 2005 06:00am.

Jan 31 2005 05:29pm

Buzz
 - Student
 Buzz

No no no that's not how he was responsible for the tsunami's, it was joint nuclear testing by the U.S. India and Israel to kill off the muslim population in the area.

Some guy in Thailand who warned of the possibility of a tsunami and was kicked out of his job recently got a job given to him by the President of Thailand since he was proven right. One of the things he went on to do right away was to say how it was the U.S.'s fault for so many people dying since we didn't give a warning or have a system.

And how this relates? Well its finding someone else to blame. Its not the countries around the indian ocean who were at fault for not having a warning system, its the United States' fault. Its not your fault you eat 5 Big Mac's everyday its McDonald's fault for selling them to you.
_______________
When you are going through Hell, keep going.
-Sir Winston Churchill.

Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it.


Jan 31 2005 05:18pm

 
 - Student

Did you know that Bush was responsible for the tsunami disaster? Oh yeah, he's responsible for it! The greenhouse emissions in the USA caused it! Oh yeah! Really! Even though it was caused by an EARTHQUAKE.

Let's not forget that the damage the entire human race does to the ozone layer every year is about the same as the damage that's caused by volcanic gasses every day. :P

Jan 31 2005 05:05pm

Buzz
 - Student
 Buzz

Information on Michael Moore's manipulation and deceits.
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/f911
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

Trust me Moore is full of it. He even lies about where he's from. Claiming he's from Flint Michigan which is basically low to middle class. He's actually from the suburb of Davison which is upper middle class and no where near as diverse as Flint.

I'm not blaming the democrats for everything. That would make me no better than them since that's their tactic. I just pointed out that they were the ones who didn't want to make these types of lawsuits illegal, and that if these were to take place and to win money then trial lawyers stand to make a lot of money. And trial lawyers are usually bigger givers for the democrats.

The judge who reopened the case was likely a liberal judge as well. That's not saying conservative judges don't make stupid rulings as well.

Oh and if its raining, it wouldn't be the democrats fault since its likely the result of global warming. So that would be Bush's fault since we all know global warming didn't start untill he took office.
_______________
When you are going through Hell, keep going.
-Sir Winston Churchill.

Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it.


Jan 31 2005 08:11am

Aayla Secura
 - Ex-Student
 Aayla Secura

Yeah democrats fault.

Look it’s raining; DEMOCRATS FAULT!!!!

And Michael Moore doesn’t manipulate anything all he did is show interesting and reoccurring events, obviously there was going to have his slant, but you can’t dismiss the entire film because just like another documentary it has its own slant, in that case you may as well not read or listen or hear anything again.
_______________
IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE!

This comment was edited by Aayla Secura on Jan 31 2005 08:11am.

Jan 30 2005 05:03pm

Buzz
 - Student
 Buzz

Super Size Me isn't a documentary. Its a Michael Moore type film where the director manipulates and twists facts and information to make it look like he's right.

McDonald's isn't shoving hamburgers down anyone's throat or encouraging them to eat there 3 times a day every day of the week. I remember last year when a bunch of Republicans wanted to make a law to for these lawsuits against fast food to not be allowed. And a bunch of Democrats were saying "hey we don't need it they're being thrown out of court now so we don't need a law." And I said then that theirs always the chance some judge won't throw it out, looks like I was right. And don't forget that one of the biggest sets of contributors to the Democrat party are trial lawyers, the group who would stand to get a lot of money if they represent some tub o'lard who couldn't make his own food and win the case. You think people drool over the fast food, these guys are drooling over the chance for money.
_______________
When you are going through Hell, keep going.
-Sir Winston Churchill.

Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it.


Jan 30 2005 11:28am

Aayla Secura
 - Ex-Student
 Aayla Secura

What’s the best though is; if they do win and fast food is some how controlled, people will start complaining that the government is controlling their lives… amuses me greatly.
_______________
IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE!

Jan 29 2005 06:43pm

Roan Belouve
 - Retired
 Roan Belouve

I hate this "it's not my fault" culture we live in.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOU OWN ACTIONS FATTIES AND LAWYERS GO PROTECT THE INNOCENT!!

LMAO at Sared's link.

/me is off to Maccy D's
_______________
*Bro to Vaxxla,Padawan of FiZZandOdan-Wei Part of the mighty Belouve Dynasty-Knight of Nippledom.Twin of Selphestal!**Proud Master to Kaelis and Acura Friend to anyone who would call me the same :). Pic by the amazing Majno (merry)

Jan 29 2005 05:40pm

Bubu
 - Hubbub
 Bubu

I recommend the movie Super Size Me

Very funny in a serious sort of way.
_______________
make install -not war

  Login and add your comment! Previous Comments >