NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize they often have harder choices to make, I never said the circumstances weren't more difficult, they are. But you're wrong about one thing, its about "where the money goes" most of today's rich were born to middle class or poor people. Since this thread is all about social mobility, I'd assume thats what you meant, not just that rich people don't decide to give all their money away.

Link? Most? I suppose you can support that. What percentage of the top net worth people were born to poor and middle class parents.

I realize they often have harder choices to make, I never said the circumstances weren't more difficult, they are. But you're wrong about one thing, its about "where the money goes" most of today's rich were born to middle class or poor people. Since this thread is all about social mobility, I'd assume thats what you meant, not just that rich people don't decide to give all their money away.

Haha. I'd love to know what world you live in.

I said nothing of the sort.

Now you're conflating "anyone can" with "anyone will".

Of course, you didn't. Your understanding of this is too simplistic to actually address anything useful. I was talking about the only way what you're saying would make sense, which it doesn't.


That simply demonstrates that choices matter. Many poor people make choices that prevent them from excaping poverty. Opportunities may arise of which they cannot take advantage, because they've made bad choices like spending too much money on tobacco, alcohol, or food.

So now we're down to many. Good. So we'll except your original premise was wrong. Good to know.


And regarding being fat, it's basic thermodynamics that you gain weight if and only if you consume more calories than you expend. And if you're doing that, you could save money by consuming fewer calories.

If you're not so poor that you can't overeat, you're not that poor.

Yet another thing where you understanding or at least your representation of your understanding is too basic. What you eat effects what you expend. As such some more expensive foods allow me to eat enough food to be energetic without gaining weight. However most of the cheaper foods, non-organic foods offer up very little in the way of your metabolism and as such cause your body to think it's starving and conserve calories. Many people whose diet I've helped with lost weight by consuming more food.

In otherwords, lots of people have to consume calories their body automatically conserves just to get enough of the nutrients their bodies need. Calories are only a small part of the equation. If you don't know this, perhaps now is a good time to accept you don't know what you're talking about and stop typing.

True, but beside the point. The fact remains that if you're gaining weight you're consuming more calories than you need to. It's the second law of thermodynamics.

You're not going to be able to refute that, no matter how hard you try.

It's only beside the point if you don't understand how it works. You can literally be consuming plenty of calories and being dying from malnutrition. That you have to simplify the way things work to the point of nonsense is evidence you don't have a valid point.

Maybe I can't refute it to you....

Imagine for a second that a food source can be metabolised into two basic products - one which can be used, and one which is a form of 'junk' material that will simply accumulate.

Further: imagine that some food sources yield higher proportions of one than the other.

Further: imagine that the cheapest and most available food sources, are heavily inclined to produce the latter product. Junk that accumulates and provides no value to the metabolism. Indeed - it acts as ballast.

All of a sudden, calorific values are irrelevent - because we aren't discussing equally metabolisable products. The only impact of calorific value, is if the energy is USED, which our 'junk material'... isn't.


Conclusion - eating even small amounts of the 'poor qaulity food' will do what? It won't increase the energy yield, allow you to do more work, or provide benefits - it will, indeed, gradually ballast the machinery. You could, effectively, starve to death on a high calorie diet.

Damn, you said it first.

<snip>
If you're not so poor that you can't overeat, you're not that poor.
Several people have addressed the plain, basic, factual wrongness of this statement, but I actually read it another way -- or, rather, an additional way. I read it as indicative of a judgmental attitude. It implies that physical starvation is the only valid indicator of poverty and that anyone who has access to food is not really "that poor", which implies "poor enough", which implies not deserving of aid from anti-poverty programs.

This is just another echo of that attitude of "deserving" versus "undeserving" poor that I complained about earlier. The idea that starvation is something a society might like to prevent by intervening before poverty gets that bad doesn't seem to factor into it. That implies a willingness to tolerate poverty and other misfortunes in one's society up to a certain point. And a rather extreme point at that, leaving a lot of room for poverty conditions to fester, short of people actually starving. That attitude is not only vicious, in my opinion, it is self-destructive, because of the negative impact poverty has on a society as a whole.

If people like Llewdor and others here think they can sit safe in their little coccoons of good fortune while millions suffer from poverty, they are wrong, because the presence of poverty around them is a sign that the social foundation that supports their lifestyles is crumbling beneath them. They could choose to learn that lesson by reading history, or by repeating it in their own lives. So, yes, as I said earlier, choice does factor into poverty -- the choices of people like Llewdor more than any others.

I didn't say it would be easy.

That's it? I make a big post with many good points and all you have is this flippant, irrelevant response? Pfft, I'm through with you.

Damn, you said it first.

Sorry. :) It had to be done.

Sorry. :) It had to be done.

I laughed at the old GnI twinklings. "Shut the fuck up" or something like that. Hehe.

poverty is about choice: the collective choice of a dominant culture based on selfishness.

=^^=
.../\...

I laughed at the old GnI twinklings. "Shut the fuck up" or something like that. Hehe.

It'd been a long day at work. What can I say.

And you're not around nearly often enough to provide a foil to that incisive wit (or whatever other people call it...), so sometimes my approach may be a little less diplomatic than it might be.

Or maybe it just flies all over me when someone acts like they know something, when they really don't. I hate the idea of people getting bad information from such a source.

poverty is about choice: the collective choice of a dominant culture based on selfishness.

=^^=
.../\...

QFT.

Because that's what they do, right? They spend all their time complaining, those lazy whining poor people. Right? That's why they don't get out of poverty... it's much for fun to not have enough to eat, so long as you get to bitch about it.



Do you not realise you just contradicted yourself? The government is capable of relieving everyone of poverty, by just the system you just mentioned - by making people employable in useful functions, and then seeing them employed.

On the first quote, you are saying nothing. You can be as sarcastic as you want, that's not an argument. You are just expressing your frustration and venting it here.You sad person.


On the second quote, let me make myself clear (you willingly seem to be slow)
"the government is uncapable of relieving them FINANCIALLY "
It was implied, but you obviously are more worried in finding apparent contradictions and discuss things that don't matter instead of argumenting with reason and logic the point that govenrment financial aid harms all the sides, gets the poors dependant on the government, and burdens everyone else (i.e. middle class) with unfair taxes.
My point in this is, financial aid is a counter-incentive to work. School or workshops or other skill-teaching institutions are the true solution against poverty. Diverge funding from education to do that is much better than taxing everyone for a unemployed salary. People shouldn't expect any monetary help from the government and go after their goals through the possible ways, as all rich and middle class people who once have been poor have done. The best to get out is to start earlier, in youth. Not starting there would be one of the mistakes that make them stay poor.

"the government is uncapable of relieving them FINANCIALLY "
It was implied, but you obviously are more worried in finding apparent contradictions and discuss things that don't matter instead of argumenting with reason and logic the point that govenrment financial aid harms all the sides, gets the poors dependant on the government, and burdens everyone else (i.e. middle class) with unfair taxes.
My point in this is, financial aid is a counter-incentive to work. School or workshops or other skill-teaching institutions are the true solution against poverty. Diverge funding from education to do that is much better than taxing everyone for a unemployed salary. People shouldn't expect any monetary help from the government and go after their goals through the possible ways, as all rich and middle class people who once have been poor have done. The best to get out is to start earlier, in youth. Not starting there would be one of the mistakes that make them stay poor.

So what you're saying is put money into education, that's the best way out of poverty? Maybe but that narrows the options, especially if the person doesn't do well in school or isn't physically able to do so.
"rich and middle class people who once have been poor have done". So you're saying that at some point everyone has been poor? Since when was the royal family poor? amongst others, some people have never even witnessed poverty, it's not a pretty sight.
Social mobility can only really be measured throughout generations, as i've said earlier.
Most people who receive monetary help genuinly need it, what you might see in the news about some people cheating the benefits system in UK and other countries is only a small proportion of the whole, also the actual giving money thing is part of a programme to kick start that person into employment via education.
I understand what you're trying to say, but "Not starting there would be one of the mistakes that make them stay poor". What a strange thing to say, not starting in poverty is the best way to avoid it? well obviously.

On the first quote, you are saying nothing. You can be as sarcastic as you want, that's not an argument. You are just expressing your frustration and venting it here.


Errr... okay?

Your original statement was... let's see "The whole point here is that if poor people invested more time in getting out of poverty instead of complaining of it to the government, their lives could change."

I'm supposed to be being sarcastic, but you are claiming that the reason people are poor is because they spend all their time 'complaining to the government'?

If I'm being sarcastic, it could be argued, it was fair response to your opening.


You sad person.


That's it. Your post was a generalisation, not even a logical one, certainly not supported in any way.. and overall, pretty ridiculous.

But, I'm 'sad'...?

Okay. I can live with that.


On the second quote, let me make myself clear (you willingly seem to be slow)
"the government is uncapable of relieving them FINANCIALLY "


Which isn't true, obviously.


It was implied, but you obviously are more worried in finding apparent contradictions and discuss things that don't matter instead of argumenting with reason and logic the point that govenrment financial aid harms all the sides, gets the poors dependant on the government, and burdens everyone else (i.e. middle class) with unfair taxes.


On the contrary, a properly executed system would burden no one with 'unfair' taxes, it would apply the cost of supporting those who can't
support themselves... to the balance accrued when they can.

I spotted another logical flaw, also.. you make the argument (later) that education is key... and yet, you assume that government aid MUST be direct cash payouts. If you provide education, there is no risk of people becoming 'dependent' (unless they learn to enjoy eating books?), and you increase your resource of skilled labour.


My point in this is, financial aid is a counter-incentive to work.


It's a good point. But rubbish. If you make the financial aid partially dependent on 'work' (of some kind)... or if you make it a composite element of an overall remuneration - then it is in the interests of the aid-ee to work as well as claim.


School or workshops or other skill-teaching institutions are the true solution against poverty.


A nice idea, but unlikely to bear fruit in the real world. Unless you have a hundred percent employment, AND (astoundingly good) income equality... all schools and workshops can do is provide a slightly more skilled poor class.


Diverge funding from education to do that is much better than taxing everyone for a unemployed salary. People shouldn't expect any monetary help from the government and go after their goals through the possible ways,


What about orphaned children? What about crippled veterans? What about those whoa re severely disabled? What about a single mom with a child who has special needs? What about a heavily pregnant woman? What about a normally good worker who is suffering a debilitiating disorder?

What is your big bone of contention with taxation, anyway? uit could be argued that taxation is what the government charges you for using THEIR money...


...as all rich and middle class people who once have been poor have done.


So - all rich and middle class people were once poor? Or... those who WERE poor, became rich or middle class by 'going after all possible goals'? Not by - for example.. winning the lottery?

Interesting... you think 'going after all possible goals' is commendable. Like... selling drugs to schoolchildren, for example?


The best to get out is to start earlier, in youth. Not starting there would be one of the mistakes that make them stay poor.

Very helpful. So - anyone who is poor and a bit older... your advice is what, time travel?

Maybe I can't refute it to you....

Imagine for a second that a food source can be metabolised into two basic products - one which can be used, and one which is a form of 'junk' material that will simply accumulate.

Further: imagine that some food sources yield higher proportions of one than the other.

Further: imagine that the cheapest and most available food sources, are heavily inclined to produce the latter product. Junk that accumulates and provides no value to the metabolism. Indeed - it acts as ballast.

All of a sudden, calorific values are irrelevent - because we aren't discussing equally metabolisable products. The only impact of calorific value, is if the energy is USED, which our 'junk material'... isn't.


Conclusion - eating even small amounts of the 'poor qaulity food' will do what? It won't increase the energy yield, allow you to do more work, or provide benefits - it will, indeed, gradually ballast the machinery. You could, effectively, starve to death on a high calorie diet.
Starvation != malnutrition

The energy from that junk material is used - it's stored as mass.

Calories out includes heat emitted and work done and undigested foods excreted. All of these have calorie values. If you're gaining weight you are necessarily eating inefficiently.

I spotted another logical flaw, also.. you make the argument (later) that education is key... and yet, you assume that government aid MUST be direct cash payouts. If you provide education, there is no risk of people becoming 'dependent' (unless they learn to enjoy eating books?), and you increase your resource of skilled labour.
The real question is: if someone attended a decent school with government help, and has some sort of marketable skill set, but is still poor (say because he has to pay child support, or because he rejected a job that would give him enough money but required him to move, or some other not 100% clear cut reasoning either way) - would you support pure financial aid then?

That's it? I make a big post with many good points and all you have is this flippant, irrelevant response? Pfft, I'm through with you.
Your post was filled with a bunch of baseless value-judgements and gross misrepresentations. I dealt with the bit that was actually relevant to what I said (and I corrected an error in your phrasing of my position).

But if you'd like:
That's like saying that unless no one can possibly escape the force of gravity on the earth's surface, gravity doesn't exist and if people can't seem to fly into orbit at command it's because of poor decision making.
If someone did manage to escape the Earth's gravity without relying on any capacity beyond those possessed by others, then the failure of other people to escape Earth's gravity would be based on their differing choices, yes (excepting luck).
Yeah you know, there are would-be rape victims who fought off their attackers and/or escaped.

So, unless they had inherent characteristics unique to them and not held by other targets of rape, then anyone can do it. It just so happens that most don't. (They probably like being raped and were asking for it.)
That last parenthetical is one of those value-judgements I mentioned. It's pointless, baseless, and probably offensive.

Again, if they could have but didn't, then it was based on choice, yes. Why they chose that isn't known to me.

Starvation != malnutrition

The energy from that junk material is used - it's stored as mass.

Calories out includes heat emitted and work done and undigested foods excreted. All of these have calorie values. If you're gaining weight you are necessarily eating inefficiently.

Bit of a gravedig?

I'm bored with you. You seem more inclined to attempt to 'argue', than to attempt to understand... and I'm just not inclined to indulge your ignorance any further.

Starvation != malnutrition

The energy from that junk material is used - it's stored as mass.

Calories out includes heat emitted and work done and undigested foods excreted. All of these have calorie values. If you're gaining weight you are necessarily eating inefficiently.

Calories are not the only important thing about food, my friend. You're oversimplification is not an argument. You can eat food that is high in calories and does not provide you with the energy to get through the day.

The only part of what you said that was true is that you're eating inefficiently. Unfortunately, efficient foods are more expensive and as such poor people have less of a choice, particularly urban poor people. They generally have to eat high calorie foods or a lot of food in order to get the necessary nutrition. You're clearly not a nutritionist nor have the first clue about nutrition, but if you'd like to have this argument, I'll happily have it with you. You're going to end up proven wrong and unaware of how nutrition really works.

If someone did manage to escape the Earth's gravity without relying on any capacity beyond those possessed by others, then the failure of other people to escape Earth's gravity would be based on their differing choices, yes (excepting luck).

Yet another oversimplification. You are aware that there a lot of factors outside of our control or, if they are in our control, aren't reasonable expectations or aren't legal, yes?

I'll give you an example. You and I start on even ground. Let's say the circumstances are the same and we're both offered the opportunity to learn martial arts and self-defense and you take it and I don't. Twenty years later we are both targetted by thugs. The thugs that attack me manage to injure me to the point of being crippled as well as giving my son brain damage that requires special care for life. You defeat them with your knowledge of self-defense with no harm to you or your family. It turns out that the thugs were a menace on the city and had injured a wealthy person who gives you a small fortune. (Yes, the scenario is ludicrous, but I'm explaining how complicated the world is.)

All of that was your own doing. Choices. But it would absolutely ridiculous to claim that the I made my bed by not anticipating an attack by thugs or that it would be reasonable for the government or anyone else to expect me to have made that choice.

You oversimplify the entire argument to the point it bears no resemblence to the real world. It's not reasonable to blame someone for not preparing for every unlikely eventuality. It's not reasonable to expect someone to forego living their life for several decades that they might eventually claw their way to flat ground. It's not reasonable to say that if someone is fat they should eat less even if it means being malnourished.

Your arguments are insipid and detached from reality.

Bit of a gravedig?

I'm bored with you. You seem more inclined to attempt to 'argue', than to attempt to understand... and I'm just not inclined to indulge your ignorance any further.

I particularly like the claim that the only possible factors are luck and choice. Seriously, I don't think I could get hit hard enough in the head to pretend the world is such a simple place.

I particularly like the claim that the only possible factors are luck and choice. Seriously, I don't think I could get hit hard enough in the head to pretend the world is such a simple place.

Sorry to leave you with all the work... I notice you still taking up the gauntlet. I'm just developing an intolerance to the amount of vacuous autopilot (pythonesque?) contradiction I get exposed to.

Sorry to leave you with all the work... I notice you still taking up the gauntlet. I'm just developing an intolerance to the amount of vacuous autopilot (pythonesque?) contradiction I get exposed to.

Well, one should begin to worry when the only source they can provide is MTAE.

I didn't like the choices in the poll.

Poor choices can perpetuate the circumstances of poverty, but it is the surrounding environment that generally causes poverty. Scarcity of resources and oppressive political climate are the big reasons. The choices you make are usually going to revolve around those two circumstances, and if lack of education is present the chances you are going to make a "good choice" go down.

The resources are not unlimited.

Where exist richs must exist also the poor.

Who become a rich and who becaome a poor is not really determined by the choices of the people but also by many other factors, like heritage for example.
I think to be rich is a crime because each rich is indirectly (or directly) responsible for the existence of the poor.

Your post was filled with a bunch of baseless value-judgements and gross misrepresentations.

Ah, of course. Nah it couldn't be that you didn't want to deal with an argument and that you just wanted to dismiss wholesale any criticism of your claims.

I dealt with the bit that was actually relevant to what I said

Nonsense. My whole post was relevant.


If someone did manage to escape the Earth's gravity without relying on any capacity beyond those possessed by others, then the failure of other people to escape Earth's gravity would be based on their differing choices, yes (excepting luck).

Wait, so why does luck get excepted?

I'll tell you why. Because you have to pretend luck and circumstance and individual situations are meaningless, because you've built your whole argument on the premise that they are and that only "choice" is relevant.

That last parenthetical is one of those value-judgements I mentioned. It's pointless, baseless, and probably offensive.

Offensive? Yes, but not any more than your own claims. If you think this is pointless, I'm afraid all you're really saying is that you missed the point.

Again, if they could have but didn't, then it was based on choice, yes. Why they chose that isn't known to me.

Oh well there you go. They probably like it. Why else? The poor are there because they choose to be that way, just like rape victims choose to be that way. Because there's no such thing as luck and everything is based on choice.

The only way your argument works is by completely refuting reality.

Why is this zombie still walking around?

This debate was pretty well settled a long time ago. All the arguments in favor of poverty being a choice have been debunked several times over. I call it concluded.

Poverty is not just a matter of choice but the result of a complex set of circumstances. Yes, choice does factor in, but only in a relatively minor way, and it is not the choices of the poor that matter most.

Done.

Yet another oversimplification. You are aware that there a lot of factors outside of our control or, if they are in our control, aren't reasonable expectations or aren't legal, yes?

I'll give you an example. You and I start on even ground. Let's say the circumstances are the same and we're both offered the opportunity to learn martial arts and self-defense and you take it and I don't. Twenty years later we are both targetted by thugs. The thugs that attack me manage to injure me to the point of being crippled as well as giving my son brain damage that requires special care for life. You defeat them with your knowledge of self-defense with no harm to you or your family. It turns out that the thugs were a menace on the city and had injured a wealthy person who gives you a small fortune. (Yes, the scenario is ludicrous, but I'm explaining how complicated the world is.)

All of that was your own doing. Choices. But it would absolutely ridiculous to claim that the I made my bed by not anticipating an attack by thugs or that it would be reasonable for the government or anyone else to expect me to have made that choice.
Excellent example. It was great right up until the conclusion, which basically ignores the example.

As you point out, this scenario was all about choice. When given the option to defend yourself from future attackers, you elected not to do that. You did something else instead.

It's called gambling. You bet that you wouldn't need to defend yourself, while I took the more risk-averse path. If chance had intervened on your behalf rather than mine, you would have come out ahead (by the opportunity cost of the self-defense classes). But that was a high-risk, low-reward play, and it was a bad decision to try it. That it worked out for you (or didn't, as in your example) doesn't matter. It was a poor choice, and you made it.

Thanks for proving my point.

now I think this is settled.

Excellent example. It was great right up until the conclusion, which basically ignores the example.

As you point out, this scenario was all about choice. When given the option to defend yourself from future attackers, you elected not to do that. You did something else instead.

It's called gambling. You bet that you wouldn't need to defend yourself, while I took the more risk-averse path. If chance had intervened on your behalf rather than mine, you would have come out ahead (by the opportunity cost of the self-defense classes). But that was a high-risk, low-reward play, and it was a bad decision to try it. That it worked out for you (or didn't, as in your example) doesn't matter. It was a poor choice, and you made it.

Thanks for proving my point.

now I think this is settled.

Oh, I see. So it's about choice if KNOWING the future I could have chosen something that would have protected me in that future.

Because what is stupid about your claim, what has always been stupid about your claim, is that I can't choose to focus all of my spare energy one EVERYTHING that could protect me in the future. If I'm spending enough time to be good enough to confidently protect myself from thugs, then I'm not working on my skills that make me a valuable employee or on my education while I'm studying self-defense.

In my scenario, I have to choose where to focus my energies and then get WILDLY LUCKY that such a choice actually mattered.

Seriously, pretending like such a scenario provides the conditions for your victory in this thread, just proves how incredibly stupid your point was from the get go. Even you are admitting that your inane argument is for choices that would almost never matter. It could not be considered reasonable to expect people to make those choices. Your argument resembles reason like I resemble Oprah.

Why don't you pretend like your inane claims about how diet works were right because you were remotely close on the working of calories? It would be equally stupid to what you're now claiming as a victory and it would allow us to get al of our laughing out in one big spurt instead of just a little every couple of days as we're doing now.

Oh, I see. So it's about choice if KNOWING the future I could have chosen something that would have protected me in that future.

Because what is stupid about your claim, what has always been stupid about your claim, is that I can't choose to focus all of my spare energy one EVERYTHING that could protect me in the future. If I'm spending enough time to be good enough to confidently protect myself from thugs, then I'm not working on my skills that make me a valuable employee or on my education while I'm studying self-defense.

In my scenario, I have to choose where to focus my energies and then get WILDLY LUCKY that such a choice actually mattered.

Seriously, pretending like such a scenario provides the conditions for your victory in this thread, just proves how incredibly stupid your point was from the get go. Even you are admitting that your inane argument is for choices that would almost never matter. It could not be considered reasonable to expect people to make those choices. Your argument resembles reason like I resemble Oprah.

Why don't you pretend like your inane claims about how diet works were right because you were remotely close on the working of calories? It would be equally stupid to what you're now claiming as a victory and it would allow us to get al of our laughing out in one big spurt instead of just a little every couple of days as we're doing now.
As I said, it's like gambling. Nothing about gambling requires you know the future (or even know the odds). You bet that you wouldn't need those self-defense skills in the future, and you lost that bet.

I was right on diet. Thermodynamics doesn't lie.

saying that refusing to take a self defense class which resulted in you getting hurt 20 years down the line is a "bad choice" is like saying that not picking winning lottery numbers is a bad choice.

In situations where the consequences of our actions can not be determined and the "right choice" is no more or less obvious than any bad choice, blaming people for making poor choices is idiotic.

There's no skill in choosing to take a self defense class that happens to help you twenty years down the line, just as there is no skill in picking the right lottery numbers or betting on #17 on the roulette wheel and pulling a 36:1 win. For something to be a choice, more consequential than merely flipping a coin, there must be, after some level of intelligent and reasoned analysis, some cohice that stands out as the better one.

If there is no ability to reason, know, or intuit which choice is the best amongst a ton of worse choices, then the judgement of "good" and "bad" becomes meaningless, as meaningless as saying someone made a bad choice when he chose "heads" when the coinflip came up tails.

As I said, it's like gambling. Nothing about gambling requires you know the future (or even know the odds). You bet that you wouldn't need those self-defense skills in the future, and you lost that bet.

I was right on diet. Thermodynamics doesn't lie.

No, you're wrong on diet. Thermodynamics doesn't lie, but body fat and nutrition aren't just properties of how many calories you get. As you pointed out, it's also a matter of how many you burn, which is greatly affected by what kind of calories you get. In other words, in order for your body to be working efficiently you usually have to spend MORE on food, not less. That's why poor people are more likely to be overweight unless they happen to be farmers with access to fresh vegetables and meats.

And, if you're talking gambling, you're talking about investing a lot of time and energy in self-defense, you'll likely NEVER need, at the expense of skills you definitely need. By the nature of reason, that is a poor choice. You're talking about luck. And luck, as much as you want to ignore it, is a factor that plays into continued poverty. You've entirely admitted how weak your point is by trying to cling to my example as an example of the choices that the poor should be considered responsible for. Thanks for showing ludicrous your argument is. I wanted to show it, but you've done it so much better than I ever could.

No, you're wrong on diet. Thermodynamics doesn't lie, but fat and nutrition aren't just properties of how many calories you get. As you pointed out, it's also a matter of how many you burn, which is greatly affected by what kind of calories you get. In other words, in order for your body to be working efficiently you usually have to spend MORE on food, not less. That's why poor people are more likely to be overweight unless they happen to be farmers with access to fresh vegetables and meats.
I said right from the beginning that it was a function of how many calories you get and how many you burn. But then the chemist came along and assumed (baselessly) I was ignoring most of the variables that affect the burned calories.

saying that refusing to take a self defense class which resulted in you getting hurt 20 years down the line is a "bad choice" is like saying that not picking winning lottery numbers is a bad choice.

In situations where the consequences of our actions can not be determined and the "right choice" is no more or less obvious than any bad choice, blaming people for making poor choices is idiotic.

There's no skill in choosing to take a self defense class that happens to help you twenty years down the line, just as there is no skill in picking the right lottery numbers or betting on #17 on the roulette wheel and pulling a 36:1 win. For something to be a choice, more consequential than merely flipping a coin, there must be, after some level of intelligent and reasoned analysis, some cohice that stands out as the better one.

If there is no ability to reason, know, or intuit which choice is the best amongst a ton of worse choices, then the judgement of "good" and "bad" becomes meaningless, as meaningless as saying someone made a bad choice when he chose "heads" when the coinflip came up tails.

You noticed that too, huh?

As I said, it's like gambling. Nothing about gambling requires you know the future (or even know the odds). You bet that you wouldn't need those self-defense skills in the future, and you lost that bet.

I was right on diet. Thermodynamics doesn't lie.

Except that your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, as I had already pointed out earlier in this thread, was flawed. The human body not being a closed system, the 2nd law doesn't hold, and entropy can be (and constantly is) violated.

saying that refusing to take a self defense class which resulted in you getting hurt 20 years down the line is a "bad choice" is like saying that not picking winning lottery numbers is a bad choice.
It's a choice with a bad outcome. Whether it was a good or bad choice is irrelevant for this discussion; it was a choice.

Poor people routinely make choices that make it less likely that they will escape poverty. They do thinkgs like smoke or buy things they can't afford (and don't need) or use drugs or alcohol, all things that put them in less of a position to take advantage of opportunity when it comes along.

Most poor people who live in major urban areas don't need cars. Most poor don't need televisions. And most poor people don't need to be fat.

Is it that hard to get a library card and read a book about nutrition?

let's even get away from the martial arts class, because there is SOME validity in that, people take martial arts so they can defend themselves, so, it's not ENTIRELY unreasonable that one could not predict ever having to use those skills, the fact that one might have to defend himself is a reality, thats why we have self defense classes.

So in that sense, maybe one could argue that it was a "good choice" to do so, because there is a good reason to.

Let's take a coin. A perfectly balanced, perfectly fair, coin. When flipped, the coin has an absolutly equal, 50% chance of landing heads, and 50% chance of landing tails (let's assume the odds of it landing on its side are so inconsequential and favor neither outcome).

Now you are asked to chose, heads or tails. You have absolutly no way to make a reasonable choice on the matter. You can not gain some insight, you can not determine which is the better option. You can not apply your intellect, reason, and rationality to decide what choice was correct. No matter what analysis you apply, what system you utilize, what methodology you employ, you have no way of knowing what the outcome will be, or even determining the most likely outcome. In short, you do not, and can not, know, in any way, what the outcome will be, only that you will either win, or lose.

You chose heads. It comes up heads. Was this a factor of your "good choice?" No, it was a factor of luck. You weren't smart, or clever, or intelligent, you didn't utlize anything to determine it, your decision happened to be right.

Now, you can argue that "heads" was a choice, and in a literal sense, it is true. However, when discussing whether being poor is a choice, it is implicitly understood that we are discussing not merely whether one made a choice which HAPPENED to make them ppor, but whether the poor lack the abilities to make reasoned, intelligent choices that would rise them out of poverty.

And, when the outcome is not only unknown, but unknowable, defining anything as a "bad" choice, when there was no possible way to determine the "good" choice, is pointless, and blaming the poor for making what they could not in any way know was a bad choice, is irrelevant and pointless to the discussion.

Except that your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, as I had already pointed out earlier in this thread, was flawed. The human body not being a closed system, the 2nd law doesn't hold, and entropy can be (and constantly is) violated.
Entropy can't be violated. That energy needs to come from somewhere, and it comes from the calories consumed.

It's a choice with a bad outcome.

And now we watch you backtrack from "it was a bad choice" to "it was a choice with a bad outcome".

amazing how a little rearranging can entirely change words isn't it?

Poor people routinely make choices that make it less likely that they will escape poverty. They do thinkgs like smoke or buy things they can't afford (and don't need) or use drugs or alcohol,

Is it your argument that some poor people make some choices that make it harder to escape poverty?

May I award this astute observation with a resounding "no shit?"

However, and again, wording is important "some poor people make choices that keep them poor" is entirely different than "poverty is about choice". One recognizes that sometimes there are obvious bad choices, the other presumes that there are always obvious good choices.

Crucial difference.

One is obvious to the point of a truism. The other is foolish to the point of absurdity.

It's a choice with a bad outcome. Whether it was a good or bad choice is irrelevant for this discussion; it was a choice.

Poor people routinely make choices that make it less likely that they will escape poverty. They do thinkgs like smoke or buy things they can't afford (and don't need) or use drugs or alcohol, all things that put them in less of a position to take advantage of opportunity when it comes along.

Most poor people who live in major urban areas don't need cars. Most poor don't need televisions. And most poor people don't need to be fat.

Is it that hard to get a library card and read a book about nutrition?

So why is it that poor people are born to poor parents more often or not? Is there a bad choice gene?

It's a choice with a bad outcome. Whether it was a good or bad choice is irrelevant for this discussion; it was a choice.

Poor people routinely make choices that make it less likely that they will escape poverty. They do thinkgs like smoke or buy things they can't afford (and don't need) or use drugs or alcohol, all things that put them in less of a position to take advantage of opportunity when it comes along.

Most poor people who live in major urban areas don't need cars. Most poor don't need televisions. And most poor people don't need to be fat.

Is it that hard to get a library card and read a book about nutrition?

Wow. You really don't know who is on poverty.

I came from a poverty situation as a kid and we would not have escaped without social assistance.

TV's :rolleyes: Tell me how a tiny tv on rabbit ears is going to keep somebody at the poverty level.

Fat????? :rolleyes: We were not fat.

Smoke?

Sorry Llewdor you really are rather ignorant as to who is at the poverty level and why they are there.

It's a choice with a bad outcome. Whether it was a good or bad choice is irrelevant for this discussion; it was a choice.

Poor people routinely make choices that make it less likely that they will escape poverty. They do thinkgs like smoke or buy things they can't afford (and don't need) or use drugs or alcohol, all things that put them in less of a position to take advantage of opportunity when it comes along.

Most poor people who live in major urban areas don't need cars. Most poor don't need televisions. And most poor people don't need to be fat.

Is it that hard to get a library card and read a book about nutrition?

Again, apparently, something to difficult for you to do, given your claims about it in this thread. Also, they'd have to get a book that's actually useful. For every good nutrition book, there are 10 crap ones. So basically they'd have to become an expert on nutrition.

So now, our poor person is become an karate champion and a nutrition expert just so they can get out of poverty. Where are they finding all this spare time when they're barely making enough to cover the bills?

A lot of choices have bad outcomes. That doesn't make them bad choices. I didn't play the lottery yesterday. If I'd just chosen to do so and picked the right numbers, I'd be ultra-wealthy. That was a choice. I didn't choose to buy Apple stock last month before it went up 40 points. That was a choice. The fact that I wouldn't have known it would go up forty points until I was looking back from the future apparently makes that a bad choice. If people made choices on the logic you're spouting, they'd be poor forever, but you'd ask them to make huge investments with little chance of any positive outcome.

Entropy can't be violated. That energy needs to come from somewhere, and it comes from the calories consumed.

And yet not all calories are created equally. The consumption of a calorie of food in order to gain that energy requires an expenditure of energy to break the food down. It's easier to break down, say, a carbohydrate than it is to break down a lipid. In fact consuming pure glucose doesn't require any real processing at all, merely an expenditure of energy to access that glucose. Which is why when you eat something sugary, like a soft drink or a packet of sugar, you get a sugar rush, which dies down very quickly. You've gone through 100 calories of glucose, used up all the energy, and probably already felt the wearying aftereffects of running out of it so quickly long before your friend who had 100 calories of a more complex sugar, or lipid, has begun to feel the effects.

At the same time, because the energy expenditure involved in processing more complex and energy-intensive foods is noticeably greater than with less complex foods, eating better foods, foods that are high in proteins (like beans or meats that haven't been cooked in lots of oils) rather than starches and fats (like a batch of fries) or simple sugars (like in your 100 calories worth of soft drinks) will help you keep your weight down, because you necessarily expend more energy accessing a gram of protein than you do in accessing a gram of fat.

It should also be noted that entropy can be violated, and frequently is violated, at the quantum level, but that's a story for another day.

Again, you fail. You completely don't understand that the human body is not a closed system. First of all, calories aren't the only energy you receive. Have you heard of the sun? That big yellow ball that's in the sky fairly often (unless you're from England).

Seriously, you should stop at stupid. Right now what you're saying is just stupid. Admit that to yourself and move on.

not to mention that diseases can interfere with the body's ability to metabolise calories, or screw with the digestive system......

I have this strong suspicion that Llewdor somehow thinks humanity is comprised of robots...

Again, you fail. You completely don't understand that the human body is not a closed system. First of all, calories aren't the only energy you receive. Have you heard of the sun? That big yellow ball that's in the sky fairly often (unless you're from England).

Seriously, you should stop at stupid. Right now what you're saying is just stupid. Admit that to yourself and move on.

*chuckle* But it's not like you need Vitamin D. Just eat lots of fries, you'll do fine.

Entropy can't be violated. That energy needs to come from somewhere, and it comes from the calories consumed.

Again, you fail. You completely don't understand that the human body is not a closed system. First of all, calories aren't the only energy you receive. Have you heard of the sun? That big yellow ball that's in the sky fairly often (unless you're from England).

Seriously, you should stop at stupid. Right now what you're saying is just stupid. Admit that to yourself and move on.

Someone has a Vulcan fetish, possibly exacerbated by some childhood trauma.

It's a choice with a bad outcome. Whether it was a good or bad choice is irrelevant for this discussion; it was a choice.

Poor people routinely make choices that make it less likely that they will escape poverty. They do thinkgs like smoke or buy things they can't afford (and don't need) or use drugs or alcohol, all things that put them in less of a position to take advantage of opportunity when it comes along.

Most poor people who live in major urban areas don't need cars. Most poor don't need televisions. And most poor people don't need to be fat.

Is it that hard to get a library card and read a book about nutrition?

Care to provide a link to stats for what percent of poor people engage in those activities?

And really, learn about nutrition yourself before making those ignorant statements.

Care to provide a link to stats for what percent of poor people engage in those activities?

And really, learn about nutrition yourself before making those ignorant statements.

You should only have bad habits when you become independently wealthy. We don't need proof, it's clearly a TRUTH.

How could poverty be solely one person's fault? If they're poor, yes, they *could* have had the chance to get out of it. So what? If I'm rich, I've got the chance to become richer... and they'll come more frequently. Better education, better starting position, the works.

Besides which, people, much like countries, can be forced into debt when corruption gets involved. Sure, there are choices involved, but you'll notice that most rich people that become skinflint aren't able to recover miraculously, unless they've got some kind of fame they can use to propel themselves... which most impoverished people lack.

It all comes down to the old saying: "You need to spend money to make money." If you have no money, and thousands of people have so little that it may as well be none from a rich person's perspective, then you simply can't earn more. You can't afford the shave, shower, and clothes to land the job to get the money.

It *might* have been an initial choice that runs someone into poverty. With the way our economy is structured, this isn't always the case, but it's a possibility. The thing is, staying poor isn't a choice people get to make. There are just enough exceptions to this to make us think that there's no issue, but really, the problem is pretty systemic.

And yet not all calories are created equally. The consumption of a calorie of food in order to gain that energy requires an expenditure of energy to break the food down. It's easier to break down, say, a carbohydrate than it is to break down a lipid. In fact consuming pure glucose doesn't require any real processing at all, merely an expenditure of energy to access that glucose. Which is why when you eat something sugary, like a soft drink or a packet of sugar, you get a sugar rush, which dies down very quickly. You've gone through 100 calories of glucose, used up all the energy, and probably already felt the wearying aftereffects of running out of it so quickly long before your friend who had 100 calories of a more complex sugar, or lipid, has begun to feel the effects.

At the same time, because the energy expenditure involved in processing more complex and energy-intensive foods is noticeably greater than with less complex foods, eating better foods, foods that are high in proteins (like beans or meats that haven't been cooked in lots of oils) rather than starches and fats (like a batch of fries) or simple sugars (like in your 100 calories worth of soft drinks) will help you keep your weight down, because you necessarily expend more energy accessing a gram of protein than you do in accessing a gram of fat.

It should also be noted that entropy can be violated, and frequently is violated, at the quantum level, but that's a story for another day.

What is important to note is that often fat people are not getting too many calories and could never make themselves skinny by reducing their caloric intake without also damaging their organs or making themselves sick (two things that are obviously more expensive). To say that a person who is fat must be spending more on food than he should is a childish understanding of nutrition to the point of being dangerous.

I learned to not say "stop eating so much, fat people" when I was about 16. I'm actually quite certain I was behind the curve on that one. Unfortunately, it seems some people will keep spouting things that should be considered stupid by children, no matter how many times they are offered better information.

What is important to note is that often fat people are not getting too many calories and could never make themselves skinny by reducing their caloric intake without also damaging their organs or making themselves sick (two things that are obviously more expensive). To say that a person who is fat must be spending more on food than he should is a childish understanding of nutrition to the point of being dangerous.

I learned to not say "stop eating so much, fat people" when I was about 16. I'm actually quite certain I was behind the curve on that one. Unfortunately, it seems some people will keep spouting things that should be considered stupid by children, no matter how many times they are offered better information.

Which ties into the fact that 100 calories of meat, beans, or green, leafy vegetables cost more than a bottle of soda. The bottle of soda may have the same caloric value, but you're not going to subsist on soda.

Hell, one of the best ways to cut back on weight gain is to stop eating/drinking foods/drinks with high sugar content. Something I have yet to put into practice.

It *might* have been an initial choice that runs someone into poverty. With the way our economy is structured, this isn't always the case, but it's a possibility. The thing is, staying poor isn't a choice people get to make. There are just enough exceptions to this to make us think that there's no issue, but really, the problem is pretty systemic.

And it's unfortunate that we tend to focus on these positive "getting off the street" stories rather than the multitudes who tried just as hard to succeed and failed.

Someone here once said "For every rags to riches story, there are a million rags to more rags stories," or something along those lines. It holds true, unforunately.

not to mention that diseases can interfere with the body's ability to metabolise calories, or screw with the digestive system......

I have this strong suspicion that Llewdor somehow thinks humanity is comprised of robots...

I've literally met morbidly obese people who, if they were to lower their caloric intake any more, would definitely damage their organs in very serious ways.

People sell diet books that keep it ridiculously and inaccurately simple because they sell. Such diet books don't actually work for the majority of people. However, through the magic of marketing, you get relatively rich people, who lower their caloric intake, and manage to eat better, because the body naturally craves things when it needs them to be healthy. So it works if you've disposable income. When you're poor and working as much as you can and can't afford to buy a steak every time you crave it, somehow, you don't exactly succeed with such silly diets. Instead they try to fill their cravings for a particular kind of nutrition with something cheap and available. Which causes them to break their diet, throw their diets more out of whack and end up in danger of all kinds of diseases associated with poor diets.

It's not coincidence that as America became more 'health conscious' (read that as more concerned with people being skinny) that obesity went up like gangbusters. It's not overeating that does it (and obviously overeating is a problem), it's that we've created a situation where people who can't afford to buy good food are going to end up eating food that is almost never satisfying and is not giving them the right things for them to be heatlhy. It's hard to buy meat when it costs ten bucks to feed your family on it and it costs sixty cents to feed them Top Ramen.

You should only have bad habits when you become independently wealthy. We don't need proof, it's clearly a TRUTH.

Oh. Well if it's the TRUTH, then obviously I was mistaken.


Note to self: Stop doing coke until I've made my first million.

The best method of removing poverty is education.

Maybe, but clearly the most fun method is simply killing off all the poor.

The best method of removing poverty is education.

The best method of removing poverty is education.

Well, yes. But to be clear, it's not just job-training education that has to go into it. Proper sex ed, nutritional education, and a slew of other things completely unrelated to getting a job and making money all have to be taught (and understood by the student).

Which ties into the fact that 100 calories of meat, beans, or green, leafy vegetables cost more than a bottle of soda. The bottle of soda may have the same caloric value, but you're not going to subsist on soda.

Hell, one of the best ways to cut back on weight gain is to stop eating/drinking foods/drinks with high sugar content. Something I have yet to put into practice.

Even setting aside soda, how many people at the poorest times in their life subsist on Top Ramen. For a dollar a day, you can get too many calories and no nutrition. I did it, when I was working like a maniac trying to get my crap together. And I even knew better. Most people simply don't.

Worse, to prepare non-instant oatmeal takes about 10 minutes including cleanup. It's MUCH healthier than the instant kind. That ten minutes is two dollar you didn't make. Now change to dinner time where you're talking about an hour and a half or more being the difference between eating a healthy meal on dishes and feeding your family from plastic microwavable pre-packaged meals. Suddenly, your meal just cost you 15 bucks plus the cost of the food.

See, that's the game. People pretend like there is only the calories to consider. That's totally untrue. People pretend like there is only the cost of the food to consider. Totally untrue. Food that is pre-processed is necessarily less healthy. But it's faster. People who don't have enough time and work jobs they cannot afford to lose are doing everything they can to make their rather depressing lives function in some real way.

If they just give up everything that's not working or surviving AND they become experts in everything they need to know but can't afford to go to an expert for (financials, nutrition, self-defense, home repairs, automobile repairs, electronics repair), then they'll escape poverty, just in time to pick out their coffin.

Maybe, but clearly the most fun method is simply killing off all the poor.

As long as you're unarmed, otherwise it's too easy.

Well, yes. But to be clear, it's not just job-training education that has to go into it. Proper sex ed, nutritional education, and a slew of other things completely unrelated to getting a job and making money all have to be taught (and understood by the student).

And political shit as well, so they can have a more informed vote I guess.

let's even get away from the martial arts class, because there is SOME validity in that, people take martial arts so they can defend themselves, so, it's not ENTIRELY unreasonable that one could not predict ever having to use those skills, the fact that one might have to defend himself is a reality, thats why we have self defense classes.

So in that sense, maybe one could argue that it was a "good choice" to do so, because there is a good reason to.

Let's take a coin. A perfectly balanced, perfectly fair, coin. When flipped, the coin has an absolutly equal, 50% chance of landing heads, and 50% chance of landing tails (let's assume the odds of it landing on its side are so inconsequential and favor neither outcome).

Now you are asked to chose, heads or tails. You have absolutly no way to make a reasonable choice on the matter. You can not gain some insight, you can not determine which is the better option. You can not apply your intellect, reason, and rationality to decide what choice was correct. No matter what analysis you apply, what system you utilize, what methodology you employ, you have no way of knowing what the outcome will be, or even determining the most likely outcome. In short, you do not, and can not, know, in any way, what the outcome will be, only that you will either win, or lose.

You chose heads. It comes up heads. Was this a factor of your "good choice?" No, it was a factor of luck. You weren't smart, or clever, or intelligent, you didn't utlize anything to determine it, your decision happened to be right.

Now, you can argue that "heads" was a choice, and in a literal sense, it is true. However, when discussing whether being poor is a choice, it is implicitly understood that we are discussing not merely whether one made a choice which HAPPENED to make them ppor, but whether the poor lack the abilities to make reasoned, intelligent choices that would rise them out of poverty.

And, when the outcome is not only unknown, but unknowable, defining anything as a "bad" choice, when there was no possible way to determine the "good" choice, is pointless, and blaming the poor for making what they could not in any way know was a bad choice, is irrelevant and pointless to the discussion.
There was effectively no choice at all, there. Given the odds, the two options were equivalent.

This is different in kind from real-world choices of the sort I'm describing. Like choosing between having children or going to night school. Or doing neither, which might be the best option (you're poor and poorly fed - you probably need the rest).

As long as you're unarmed, otherwise it's too easy.



And political shit as well, so they can have a more informed vote I guess.

Given what they teach for sex ed, I'd rather the people in charge not have any say in teaching our youth how to vote.

"I know they tell you, your vote counts, Timmy, but, really, it doesn't... unless you vote Republican."

Maybe, but clearly the most fun method is simply killing off all the poor.

You could pay the poor to off the poor. The resourceful poor get out of poverty, the unresourceful are wiped away like the blight they are. It's a win/win situation.

There was effectively no choice at all, there. Given the odds, the two options were equivalent.

This is different in kind from real-world choices of the sort I'm describing. Like choosing between having children or going to night school. Or doing neither, which might be the best option (you're poor and poorly fed - you probably need the rest).

The real world choices you're describing are being judged by outcome from a future perspective. From the time of making the choice, the choices you're suggesting would require people to choose between a series of things that have no apparent value over each other.

If I have to choose between focusing on my education or on self-defense, the self-defense is a grossly irrational choice even if at some future date I get crazy lucky and save myself using it. Just like playing the lottery is a poor choice even if you win. Just like dealing drugs is a poor choice even if you never get caught. Outcome doesn't determine whether a choice was reasonable or "good". The way we make choices has nothing to do with knowing the future first, obviously. Your hindsight choice-making has no application in the real world.

The real world choices you're describing are being judged by outcome from a future perspective. From the time of making the choice, the choices you're suggesting would require people to choose between a series of things that have no apparent value over each other.

If I have to choose between focusing on my education or on self-defense, the self-defense is a grossly irrational choice even if at some future date I get crazy lucky and save myself using it. Just like playing the lottery is a poor choice even if you win. Just like dealing drugs is a poor choice even if you never get caught. Outcome doesn't determine whether a choice was reasonable or "good". The way we make choices has nothing to do with knowing the future first, obviously. Your hindsight choice-making has no application in the real world.
Dealing drugs is a poor choice? How am I ever going to become a millionaire?


*goes back to investing in lottery tickets*

Dealing drugs is a poor choice? How am I ever going to become a millionaire?


*goes back to investing in lottery tickets*

No, according to Llewdor, it's about outcome. If you don't get caught, it's a good choice. And if you win the lottery, it's a good choice. And if you turn left, and you get in a car accident. You chose to turn left. You deserved it.

Didn't study martial arts, then it was your choice that got your family killed by those thugs. (And I know some of that I was paraphrasing or exaggerating, but he did say it was the person's poor choice that got his family killed.)

No, according to Llewdor, it's about outcome. If you don't get caught, it's a good choice. And if you win the lottery, it's a good choice. And if you turn left, and you get in a car accident. You chose to turn left. You deserved it.

Didn't study martial arts, then it was your choice that got your family killed by those thugs. (And I know some of that I was paraphrasing or exaggerating, but he did say it was the person's poor choice that got his family killed.)

So what you're saying is I should diversify. I should sell drugs and invest in lottery tickets. And it's good sense to never turn left and to take martial arts. After I've made my first million I can go back to my cocaine habit and eat nothing but chocolate cake and deep fried cheese.

My life no longer lacks direction. I will be more successful than Bill Gates.:D

The best method of removing poverty is education.
Education is also the best method of reducing the birth rate.

You should only have bad habits when you become independently wealthy.
This is one of the smartest things said in this thread.

The poor can't afford bad habits if they want to stop being poor.

This is one of the smartest things said in this thread.

The poor can't afford bad habits if they want to stop being poor.

Or to enjoy life at all. Or to eat healthy. Or to do anything accept work and survive. It's their fault for being born to poor families. And, hey, why shouldn't the wealthy, like myself make so much from them that they can only work and survive. God forbid, we offer them anything in the way of aid. Nope, they don't deserve. Us, rich, with our luck, our odds of never becoming poor again, our ability to make other people do our work and take our risks for us deserve to live life while the rest of you make it comfortable for us to do so.

Sorry, losers.

Or to enjoy life at all. Or to eat healthy. Or to do anything accept work and survive. It's there fault for being born to poor families. And, hey, why shouldn't the wealthy, like myself make so much from them that they can only work and survive. God forbid, we offer them anything in the way of aid. Nope, they don't deserve. Us, rich, with our luck, our odds of never becoming poor again, our ability to make other people do our work and take our risks for us deserve to live life while the rest of you make it comfortable for us to do so.

Sorry, losers.

*red dot appears on forehead* anything else you'd like to add?

Or to enjoy life at all. Or to eat healthy. Or to do anything accept work and survive. It's there fault for being born to poor families. And, hey, why shouldn't the wealthy, like myself make so much from them that they can only work and survive. God forbid, we offer them anything in the way of aid. Nope, they don't deserve. Us, rich, with our luck, our odds of never becoming poor again, our ability to make other people do our work and take our risks for us deserve to live life while the rest of you make it comfortable for us to do so.

Sorry, losers.

You have one thing wrong. They could eat healthy, they just aren't smart enough to go check out a nutrition book from the library.

Is there even a point to being serious in this thread anymore?

*red dot appears on forehead* anything else you'd like to add?

Being poor made you Indian and religious?

Or to enjoy life at all.
They're not automatically entitled to all the luxuries the rich have, no. That does not preclude their enjoying life at all.

Nice appeal to desert, by the way. I've never understood why people find the concept of desert at all compelling.

You have one thing wrong. They could eat healthy, they just aren't smart enough to go check out a nutrition book from the library.

Is there even a point to being serious in this thread anymore?

But there's the rub. They have to make the choice to pick the right nutrition book, which they wouldn't know how to do, not knowing about nutrition. Fortunately, we'll get to judge their choice after the fact based on their success. Cuz, that's what us rich people do (us being me and other rich people. You're poor so you suck. Get back to your crack and alcohol and eating too much, breeder.), judge you poor on how your lives turn out while we stack the odds against you by ensuring you don't have reasonable safety nets, controlling the nation's politics and media, and refusing to put adequate funding or support into education and wellness programs.

That rich people seek to choose laws and politicians that allow them to keep as much money as possible is not a conspiracy theory. It's just rational.

They're not automatically entitled to all the luxuries the rich have, no. That does not preclude their enjoying life at all.

Nice appeal to desert, by the way. I've never understood why people find the concept of desert at all compelling.

I'm not talking about dessert. I'm talking about enjoying ANYTHING about your life. To you, it's a poor choice, a choice to be poor if they don't focus all of their time and money on getting out of poverty.

Poor people don't get to have kids. They don't get to watch movies, or buy music. They don't get to enjoy a night out with friends. Just work at keep us poor comfortable.

Now, the rich, by virtue of having been born rich get to enjoy anything and everything they want, because asking them to provide just enough that people who work equally hard have a reasonable amount of mobilitiy in one of the richest times in history, is simply too much burden to place on the rich.

The poor rich people. We've been oppressing them so long. When we will stand up for them and say, no more. We were born rich and we deserve to keep every penny of it.

Why do I keep bringing up birth, because the type of thinking you're employing virtually guarantees that any upward mobility will be the product of luck, rather than setting things up so that upward mobility (and downward mobility) becomes less a product of where you start and more a product of how hard you're willing to work to move.

For every good nutrition book, there are 10 crap ones. So basically they'd have to become an expert on nutrition.
Because apparently poor people can't read a bibliography and check citations.

How little credit are you giving these people?

This is one of the smartest things said in this thread.

The poor can't afford bad habits if they want to stop being poor.

And this is one of the stupidest things said in this thread.

Considering the work you've been doing to keep this pathetic non-debate going, the constant efforts to keep people debunking your ridiculous and ill-informed claims over and over, that's saying something. I've been reading along, and I don't think you have said one single thing that has not been shown to be factually wrong and/or fatally flawed in its reasoning so far.

Oh, and as I've been saying about a lot of people here from the beginning, that idiotic remark about "bad habits" is nothing but evidence of a personal prejudice against poor people based not on fact but on elitism and judgmentalism. Like the rest of your arguments, it ignores the actual nature of poverty and the real facts about how "the other half lives," in order to claim that the poor do things you don't approve of and, therefore, poverty is their just reward, ergo you don't have to worry about them or it, because neither will ever affect you, because you're so wonderful, as proven by the fact that you approve of all your own life decisions.

By the way, the rich can't afford bad habits if they want to keep being rich, either.

It's hard to buy meat when it costs ten bucks to feed your family on it and it costs sixty cents to feed them Top Ramen.
The 8 oz Ham I just found on NetGrocer for $3.19 somehow doesn't count?

Meat doesn't have to be expensive, especially if you're willing to buy cheap meat. You can take the toughest cut of beef in the world, soak it in vinegar for 2 days, and you'll have some tender sauerbraten. This isn't hard.

And yes, I would count dietary restrictions based on religion a luxury. Eat what you can afford.

You have one thing wrong. They could eat healthy, they just aren't smart enough to go check out a nutrition book from the library.

Is there even a point to being serious in this thread anymore?

There's an emoticon for sarcasm. At least, I hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, you're being an asshat.

But there's the rub. They have to make the choice to pick the right nutrition book, which they wouldn't know how to do, not knowing about nutrition. Fortunately, we'll get to judge their choice after the fact based on their success. Cuz, that's what us rich people do (us being me and other rich people. You're poor so you suck. Get back to your crack and alcohol and eating too much, breeder.), judge you poor on how your lives turn out while we stack the odds against you by ensuring you don't have reasonable safety nets, controlling the nation's politics and media, and refusing to put adequate funding or support into education and wellness programs.

That rich people seek to choose laws and politicians that allow them to keep as much money as possible is not a conspiracy theory. It's just rational.

http://files.myopera.com/RWgirl/albums/234727/cocaine.jpg

I think this thread is long past rational.

The 8 oz Ham I just found on NetGrocer for $3.19 somehow doesn't count?

Meat doesn't have to be expensive, especially if you're willing to buy cheap meat. You can take the toughest cut of beef in the world, soak it in vinegar for 2 days, and you'll have some tender sauerbraten. This isn't hard.

And yes, I would count dietary restrictions based on religion a luxury. Eat what you can afford.
The poor are not allowed to believe in things, either, apparently, according to you. You know, kosher food is not typically expensive. In fact, I know of no religious dietary restrictions that would require spending a lot of money. This is just another example of your breathtaking ignorance and prejudice.

Oh, and as I've been saying about a lot of people here from the beginning, that idiotic remark about "bad habits" is nothing but evidence of a personal prejudice against poor people based not on fact but on elitism and judgmentalism.
I'm not prejudiced against the poor. I'm indifferent to them.
By the way, the rich can't afford bad habits if they want to keep being rich, either.
The middle class can afford 2 beers a day. The poor cannot.

Because apparently poor people can't read a bibliography and check citations.

How little credit are you giving these people?

Actually, you demonstrate my point. Apparently they are required to become experts in nutrition. And, yes, most people poor or rich can't check a bibliography and citations other than to meet up with more propaganda.

I mean, you're educated, and listen to how utterly convinced you are of a wildly stupid idea.

By the way, the rich can't afford bad habits if they want to keep being rich, either.

Sure they can. Duh! That's why they're rich!

There's an emoticon for sarcasm. At least, I hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, you're being an asshat.
Sarcasm on the internet? Never! How dare you accuse me of such vileness.
http://esum.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/serious.jpg

One man. One story. My view.

Christopher Gardner.



:D

The 8 oz Ham I just found on NetGrocer for $3.19 somehow doesn't count?

Meat doesn't have to be expensive, especially if you're willing to buy cheap meat. You can take the toughest cut of beef in the world, soak it in vinegar for 2 days, and you'll have some tender sauerbraten. This isn't hard.

And yes, I would count dietary restrictions based on religion a luxury. Eat what you can afford.

8 oz of meat that takes 2 days to prepare and a half a pound of meat is enough food for how many people? For 60 cents I could feed a family of 5 with plenty of calories. Remember, it's only about calories. You're wasting money.

Meanwhile, now, let's pretend you're making a rational argument and turn that ham (by the way, the cheapest cuts of meat usually keep for the least time, are already the oldest, and typically are the least healthy. But let's ignore that for now). So now they have a meat. We'll add Carrots and a couple of dollars on average. Then we'll add in a couple of slices of bread at a half a buck. Plus, half a gallon of milk at 2 dollars. So we have a healthy meal that will take a couple of hours to prepare and clean up for one person that just cost approximately 25.00 including the time that could have been spent working. And they all got exaclty 1.6 oz of meat or I/10th of a pound.

Hmmm.... I see your point. Clearly, poor people are wasting money when they buy Top Ramen and make a meal that including the work involved to make it costs about a dollar and half and would certainly cause them to be overweight. Poor people get fat by wasting money. Well-proven. You got anything other points you want to "prove". Or do you simply want to admit how stupid this is?

You must remember though, if you make life too easy for those able but refusing to work, then nothing will ever change, and the poor will stay poor. I only support benefits to an extent until the poor are able work to a level that will pay for their essential needs, and the needs of their children.

I'm not prejudiced against the poor. I'm indifferent to them.
More proof. Every word you type condemns you.

The middle class can afford 2 beers a day. The poor cannot.

Two beers a day is not a bad habit according to most health studies over the past several decades, which indicate that in the absence of certain other pre-existing conditions, moderate alcohol consumption is good for adults. So, this is just another example of a healthful habit you would deny the poor access to, as well as another entry in the Whole Earth Catalogue of Things You Don't Know But Still Presume To Talk About As Long As You Can Do It Judgmentally.

I'm not prejudiced against the poor. I'm indifferent to them.

The middle class can afford 2 beers a day. The poor cannot.

Actually, you're prejudiced TOWARD the rich. You claim that the rich deserve to live more fulfilling lives than the poor by the very nature of being rich. You even went so far as to claim your religious beliefs are luxuries.

So now the poor can't have children, faith, dessert, good food to eat, anything that counts as entertainment or basically live at all. Good to know.

8 oz of meat that takes 2 days to prepare and a half a pound of meat is enough food for how many people? For 60 cents I could feed a family of 5 with plenty of calories. Remember, it's only about calories. You're wasting money.

Meanwhile, now, let's pretend you're making a rational argument and turn that ham (by the way, the cheapest cuts of meat usually keep for the least time, are already the oldest, and typically are the least healthy. But let's ignore that for now). So now they have a meat. We'll add Carrots and a couple of dollars on average. Then we'll add in a couple of slices of bread at a half a buck. Plus, half a gallon of milk at 2 dollars. So we have a healthy meal that will take a couple of hours to prepare and clean up for one person that just cost approximately 25.00 including the time that could have been spent working.

Hmmm.... I see your point. Clearly, poor people are wasting money when they buy Top Ramen and make a meal that including the work involved to make it costs about a dollar and half and would certainly cause them to be overweight. Poor people get fat by wasting money. Well-proven. You got anything other points you want to "prove". Or do you simply want to admit how stupid this is?

You are just a wealth of information today. I could save so much money living on Top Ramen. Now I know veggies and meat are a waste of money and time. See? That's why you are rich. You make very wise choices.

This thread makes me want to light myself on fire.

You must remember though, if you make life too easy for those able but refusing to work, then nothing will ever change, and the poor will stay poor. I only support benefits to an extent until the poor are able work to a level that will pay for their essential needs, and the needs of their children.

Of course, a good program would increase mobility, nothing more. Of course, that starts by realizing what parts are choices and what parts aren't, and requires to stomp down on the ramblings of people who claim if you cannot see the future and make wildly unreasonable choices in order to protect you from horribly unlikely futures, then you're making bad choices.

One man. One story. My view.

Christopher Gardner.



:D

How many counter examples are there?

You are just a wealth of information today. I could save so much money living on Top Ramen. Now I know veggies and meat are a waste of money and time. See? That's why you are rich. You make very wise choices.

This thread makes me want to light myself on fire.

Well, it's only about calories. You can for less money get more calories from Top Ramen, so it's clearly the only thing the poor should eat.

Of course, Llewdor could just admit that he does in fact recognize that nutrition is perhaps more complicated and we could stop mocking how incredibly stupid his claim is, but he'll just pretend that it totally makes sense for people to live on Top Ramen because it's cheaper.

How many counter examples are there?

Thousands. There is always a story for any view one takes on any debate.

I am a firm believer though that if you truly want something in life, you will find a way to make it happen. Life is tough. I will not say it will be easy accomplishing any goal, but if you want something only you can make it happen. Especially in America, where everyone is out for themselves....if you want something, only you can really do anything to change that.

Do I think poverty is about choice? For the most part, maybe, but many times it is a series of events, so no. Do I think living on the streets homeless is a choice? Absolutely. And I respect the people who make that choice. Murder is such an easy way to get yourself free food and shelter, but those who choose to live on the streets made that honorable decision to do so.

I am a firm believer though that if you truly want something in life, you will find a way to make it happen. Life is tough. I will not say it will be easy accomplishing any goal, but if you want something only you can make it happen. Especially in America, where everyone is out for themselves....if you want something, only you can really do anything to change that.



If you are single and young; sure it's a nice platitude.

Now trying being a single female with children(I believe this is a large number of the poverty). For the heck of it; let's make one severely autistic child(I know such a woman).

Now let's hear how you will go about making things happen.

Well, it's only about calories. You can for less money get more calories from Top Ramen, so it's clearly the only thing the poor should eat.

Of course, Llewdor could just admit that he does in fact recognize that nutrition is perhaps more complicated and we could stop mocking how incredibly stupid his claim is, but he'll just pretend that it totally makes sense for people to live on Top Ramen because it's cheaper.

It's really a waste of money for someone to eat veggies and meat since calories are all you need, therefore that's a bad habit and an indulgence to eat them. So poor people shouldn't even bother with that stuff. And they dont' need a nutrition book, because it's so simple! And all the information you need is right on the nutrition label. I'm sure poor people can do basic math. Each package of Top Ramen is what? 500 calories? And the percentages are based on a 2,000 calorie diet, so that means every single person needs exactly 2,000 calories to live on. So everyone needs to eat 4 packets of Top Ramen a day. See? I solved the obesity problem right here.

If you are single and young; sure it's a nice platitude.

Now trying being a single female with children(I believe this is a large number of the poverty). For the heck of it; let's make one severely autistic child(I know such a woman).

Now let's hear how you will go about making things happen.

Well, it was a bad decision to have kids with a guy that wouldn't stick around and to have an autistic kid. Clearly she wouldn't be poor if she would have made better choices.

By the way, in the meal described each person is getting about 80 calories worth of protein. So for that very simple meal, you have about 1 ninth of the total recommended protein calories for the average adult with just a relative level of activity.

So basically, as long as they have the meal described 9 times a day, they will be all set.

A carrot is about 60 calories. Let's say we give them two.

2 slices of bread are about 150 calories.

The milk is 120 calories. So they had a total of 470 calories for their evening meal. No where near the amount of meat they need, and because they are likely pretty active working every free moment they have, you're talking about what would be equivalent of 1/5 of the necessary caloric intake for an active adult male of average size. That's not including if there is a teenaged boy in the house who needs adequate nutrition.

By contrast the same caloric intake from Ramen takes about 15 cents. The meal I described that really isn't balanced would cost about five bucks a person. Adjust their meat intake to make it more reasonable and you're looking at closer to 30 bucks. Plus you'd have to have about 10 half pound hams in your fridge soaking at any given time in order to have proper daily meals. I'm wondering where these poor people live that they have so much room available to them.

By the way, in the meal described each person is getting about 80 calories worth of protein. So for that very simple meal, you have about 1 ninth of the total recommended protein calories for the average adult with just a relative level of activity.

So basically, as long as they have the meal described 9 times a day, they will be all set.

A carrot is about 60 calories. Let's say we give them two.

2 slices of bread are about 150 calories.

The milk is 120 calories. So they had a total of 470 calories for their evening meal. No where near the amount of meat they need, and because they are likely pretty active working every free moment they have, you're talking about what would be equivalent of 1/5 of the necessary caloric intake for an active adult male of average size. That's not including if there is a teenaged boy in the house who needs adequate nutrition.

By contrast the same caloric intake from Ramen takes about 25 cents.
I already proved eating meat and veggies was a poor choice, do try to keep up.

By contrast the same caloric intake from Ramen takes about 15 cents. The meal I described that really isn't balanced would cost about five bucks a person. Adjust their meat intake to make it more reasonable and you're looking at closer to 30 bucks. Plus you'd have to have about 10 half pound hands in your fridge soaking at any given time in order to have proper daily meals. I'm wondering where these poor people live that they have so much room available to them.

Cannibalism! That's the perfect solution! That's where the poor can get their meat. It's free and healthy!

If you are single and young; sure it's a nice platitude.

Now trying being a single female with children(I believe this is a large number of the poverty). For the heck of it; let's make one severely autistic child(I know such a woman).

Now let's hear how you will go about making things happen.


First, it is pretty naive to assume autism is debilitating. Most cases of autism the child is relatively fine but lacking social skills. So your child does not talk much or adequately express its needs....I would think in the case of poverty that might help a single mother. She doesn't have to listen to children whining about being hungry.

As for severly autistic and you knowing such a woman, that is one of those rare exceptions. If you can honestly tell me that most struggling single mothers would keep a "retarded" baby, that would be mighty impressive and I would then have to ask where you live because at least where I do, most of those babies end up in adoption agencies, Foster homes, left in the hospital, or you find them in trash cans or left out on the street abandoned when the autism begins to present around age four.

Now you said if you were single and young that it is a nice platitude, but is that not who most "single" mothers are? Younger women who baby's daddy ran off?


So now, I'm a single mother with children. I would be breast-feeding. Free and has all the nutrients my child needs. So long as I continue breast feeding, my milk will come in. The issue of food is being taken care of. I would also go to soup kitchens or churches.

Shelter, again churches, or a homeless shelter. If that fails, sleeping in a cardboard box isn't that bad so long as it is a small one. Yes, this I did and learned personally.

Entertainment, walks to the park. Throw a few sticks on the street, let people rollar blading and riding bikes hit them. ;)

Now, if I lived out in the boondocks, I'd be in paradise. I'll build my own home and slay my own dinners. Of course, you have to be able to hunt, gut, and build, fortunately, you asked me what I would do and I'm proficient in those skills. ;)



Like I said, if you want something, you'll find a way. As for me, my goal would be survival. I don't need to live lavishly, so I don't mind spending a few weeks in the same clothing if it meant I was keeping my family alive.

If that fails, sleeping in a cardboard box isn't that bad so long as it is a small one.

. . .

Like I said, if you want something, you'll find a way.

So your way out of poverty is to become homeless and sleep in a fucking box. I don't think you understand how "getting out of poverty" works.

Your thread is filled with so much bullshit it can fertilize Idaho.

And by the way, here's a hint. A mother can only continue to breastfeed as long as she, herself, stays healthy. Believe it or not, that milk has to come from somewhere, it just doesn't magically appear. As soon as the mother starts being unable to feed herself, she will no longer be able to feed her children.

So your way out of poverty is to become homeless and sleep in a fucking box. I don't think you understand how "getting out of poverty" works.

Your thread is filled with so much bullshit it can fertilize Idaho.

And by the way, here's a hint. A mother can only continue to breastfeed as long as she, herself, stays healthy. Believe it or not, that milk has to come from somewhere, it just doesn't magically appear. As soon as the mother starts being unable to feed herself, she will no longer be able to feed her children.


My thread? Maybe you should learn to read threads before posting.

And you are talking to me about how breastfeeding works? *lol* I have no idea who you are but please, spare yourself from looking like an more of an idiot by assuming I do not know how breastfeeding works.

Being homeless does not mean you have the incapacity to be healthy....just means you might have to work harder to get decent food.

And you are talking to me about how breastfeeding works? *lol* I have no idea who you are but please, spare yourself from looking like an more of an idiot by assuming I do not know how breastfeeding works.

Being homeless does not mean you have the incapacity to be healthy....just means you might have to work harder to get decent food.

Only one of us looks like the idiot here, I'll leave it to your limited imagination to figure out which.

When you're ready to stop lying about yourself and debate the topic, that's one thing, until then, your contribution to this thread really isn't worthwhile.

First, it is pretty naive to assume autism is debilitating.
Well, you seem to be an expert on being naive...

Most cases of autism the child is relatively fine but lacking social skills. So your child does not talk much or adequately express its needs....
Really? In most cases, autistic children just sit quietly in the corner. How interesting. Where are your numbers on that, or if you're relying on personal experience, how many autistic children do you have in a silent waiting pattern around your house?

I would think in the case of poverty that might help a single mother. She doesn't have to listen to children whining about being hungry.
:rolleyes:

As for severly autistic and you knowing such a woman, that is one of those rare exceptions. If you can honestly tell me that most struggling single mothers would keep a "retarded" baby, that would be mighty impressive and I would then have to ask where you live because at least where I do, most of those babies end up in adoption agencies, Foster homes, left in the hospital, or you find them in trash cans or left out on the street abandoned when the autism begins to present around age four.
Oh, so in your experience, children with special needs are not an inssue for the poor because the poor, especially poor young single women, don't love their children. I see.

Now you said if you were single and young that it is a nice platitude, but is that not who most "single" mothers are? Younger women who baby's daddy ran off?
Their "baby daddy." So, you're not only naive but also willing to make vast assumptions about what kind of people we're talking about here?

So now, I'm a single mother with children. I would be breast-feeding. Free and has all the nutrients my child needs. So long as I continue breast feeding, my milk will come in. The issue of food is being taken care of. I would also go to soup kitchens or churches.
Of course, nothing ever goes wrong with breast feeding. No woman has ever been unable to produce sufficient milk (actually, that's a very common issue, especially for young mothers). If the mother has poor nutrition, that in no way will interfere with milk production (actually, it can). And of course, there is no reason why a child should ever be weaned onto solid food. If the financial problems cannot be settled, the child can keep suckling until -- what? 15, 16 years old?

And equally, of course, there's never any problems with soup kitchens, in or out of churches. They never lack food or funding, and they are conveniently located in all areas.

Shelter, again churches, or a homeless shelter. If that fails, sleeping in a cardboard box isn't that bad so long as it is a small one. Yes, this I did and learned personally.
Mm-hmm. And you would recommend it, would you? Would you recommend it to a woman with an infant, too? How about in the winter?

So, what you're saying is, you are perfectly okay with the idea of people being homeless and hungry, including small children. You think the mechanisms of poverty -- wandering from church to church begging for food and sleeping in boxes -- are totally good and workable things to do. Perhaps you not only think poverty is a matter of choice, but that people should choose to be poor, since it's so do-able.

Entertainment, walks to the park. Throw a few sticks on the street, let people rollar blading and riding bikes hit them. ;)
:rolleyes: Please don't try so hard. You've already demonstrated that you just don't get this issue.

Now, if I lived out in the boondocks, I'd be in paradise. I'll build my own home and slay my own dinners. Of course, you have to be able to hunt, gut, and build, fortunately, you asked me what I would do and I'm proficient in those skills. ;)
So, if you're Grizzly Adams and in the mountains, then being a mountain man is Teh Fun. That's strange because the people who live in Appalachia and are struggling from day to day due to mine and mill closings, don't seem to enjoy it so much, despite all the tar paper on their roofs and all the dead possums they can find in the ditches down t'holler.

Like I said, if you want something, you'll find a way. As for me, my goal would be survival. I don't need to live lavishly, so I don't mind spending a few weeks in the same clothing if it meant I was keeping my family alive.
No, I dispute this. No matter how much I might like to get you to treat the issue of poverty seriously, I don't think I will ever be able to make it happen, no matter what I try. The fact that you spent all this time making facetious remarks and acting as if poverty, hunger and homelessness are just a fun adventure, and then make some off-hand remark about not buying clothes, as if poor people are reknown for their lavish wardrobes, just go to show that you just don't care.

My thread? Maybe you should learn to read threads before posting.

And you are talking to me about how breastfeeding works? *lol* I have no idea who you are but please, spare yourself from looking like an more of an idiot by assuming I do not know how breastfeeding works.

Being homeless does not mean you have the incapacity to be healthy....just means you might have to work harder to get decent food.

And its technically possible for someone making 6 an hour to make 1000 a week ... I do not think it is possible for any human to do such and maintain it for any length of time as well

Lots of things are theoretically possible but can hardly blame people for not achieving as well

Just a thought....

But look at this way, it's again about choice. Assuming you are making six dollars an hour and working forty hours a week.

If you had 50 dollars only to spend on groceries what would you buy?

Based off the assumption that you are under the recommended 2000 Calorie diet. What would you personally buy to meet your nutritional needs to be healthy?

I am just curious, no targeting, no sarcasm, everything aside. I am curious to see how you would spend 50 dollars for food.

If you are single and young; sure it's a nice platitude.

Now trying being a single female with children(I believe this is a large number of the poverty). For the heck of it; let's make one severely autistic child(I know such a woman).

Now let's hear how you will go about making things happen.

One could argue that getting oneself in this position was "a poor choice." I, as a matter of fact, would make that argument.

However, I believe that people who are already in a bad spot are much, much more likely to make "poor choices." In general, the poor are not as well educated, know less about managing money, etc. And if someone from a middle-class or upper-class family still made a poor choice, they have a family to help bail them out. Just look at all the stars who check into rehab.
So I wouldn't say that if someone is poor, it's his or her fault. I'd say it was luck of the draw at best, and society's fault for not rehabilitating him, at worst.

In most cases, autistic children just sit quietly in the corner. How interesting. Where are your numbers on that, or if you're relying on personal experience, how many autistic children do you have in a silent waiting pattern around your house? ....So in your experience, children with special needs are not an inssue for the poor because the poor, especially poor young single women, don't love their children..... So, you're not only naive but also willing to make vast assumptions about what kind of people we're talking about here? .... Of course, nothing ever goes wrong with breast feeding. No woman has ever been unable to produce sufficient milk (actually, that's a very common issue, especially for young mothers). If the mother has poor nutrition, that in no way will interfere with milk production (actually, it can). And of course, there is no reason why a child should ever be weaned onto solid food. If the financial problems cannot be settled, the child can keep suckling until -- what? 15, 16 years old....And equally, of course, there's never any problems with soup kitchens, in or out of churches. They never lack food or funding, and they are conveniently located in all areas.... Mm-hmm. And you would recommend it, would you? Would you recommend it to a woman with an infant, too? How about in the winter?.... So, what you're saying is, you are perfectly okay with the idea of people being homeless and hungry, including small children. You think the mechanisms of poverty -- wandering from church to church begging for food and sleeping in boxes -- are totally good and workable things to do. Perhaps you not only think poverty is a matter of choice, but that people should choose to be poor, since it's so do-able.... So, if you're Grizzly Adams and in the mountains, then being a mountain man is Teh Fun. That's strange because the people who live in Appalachia and are struggling from day to day due to mine and mill closings, don't seem to enjoy it so much, despite all the tar paper on their roofs and all the dead possums they can find in the ditches down t'holler.... No, I dispute this. No matter how much I might like to get you to treat the issue of poverty seriously, I don't think I will ever be able to make it happen, no matter what I try. The fact that you spent all this time making facetious remarks and acting as if poverty, hunger and homelessness are just a fun adventure, and then make some off-hand remark about not buying clothes, as if poor people are reknown for their lavish wardrobes, just go to show that you just don't care.


*lol* Oh you guys are too easy to upset. Seriously, take a few deep breaths, settle down. Last I checked, I think we are on the same side of the issue, but I refuse to believe that just because you grew up in poverty it is impossible to get out of poverty. I have never said it was easy, just that it was possible. Of course, you can argue anything and will find a thousand and one things to argue in this as well.


Now, with all the bashing DFD aside, I was asked what I would do and that is my response to what I would do. Not what everyone should do, but what I would do. Reread it sweetie, it is what I would do. Question all you like, but that is what I would do. If I became homeless, I would go between churches, shelters, what not. I would find a way to keep my family healthy. And I did stay in a cardboard box during a cold sweep....it only works if it's small and you know how to bundle up. True it is harder with an infant, but then it becomes an issue of morality because how many people would actually live like that for extended periods of time and keep their children. If it resulted to eating rats out of a sewer, I would do that as well. Now I could have said murder my children and go out to make an easier living being that young single person we are idolizing here, but I did not.

I grew up those poor coal mining towns you so lovingly talk about. And in fact, I got out. Most people do not. They spend their lives there never doing anything. I got out because I hit books in school instead of getting pregnant at 14 and drinking at 10. If it was not for scholarships, I would never have had an education.

One thing we learn early is how to survive with the little we have. You learn quickly that it doesn't actually take that much to sustain life. We picked wild berries all the time. Wild mushrooms. Grew our own gardens. You find little ways to save a buck.

And yes, it is fun. When a group of people who have nothing live together, it is more fun then you could imagine. Coming from nothing, you learn to make your own fun. In fact, it is why I am so proficient in building things, killing animals, skinning them, fishing, you name it. Sure, make fun of us, talk about the Appalician struggling, but once you live it then you can call it a struggle. It is only hard because money is lacking, but not because we cannot feed ourselves. And about mines collapsing, imagine walking through your own backyard and having one collapse. You learn to live within your means. And the poor health in the area is not a lack of means, it is bad decisions. Instead of buying whole wheat bread, they choose a case of beer or a pack of cigarettes.

And if you like, yes I can provide you with a slew of autism statistics. TG or email?

*lol* Oh you guys are too easy to upset. Seriously, take a few deep breaths, settle down. Last I checked, I think we are on the same side of the issue, but I refuse to believe that just because you grew up in poverty it is impossible to get out of poverty.

That's nice. Now please find me someone who argued that it is always impossible to excape poverty.

Fighting windmills went out of styles years ago.

First, it is pretty naive to assume autism is debilitating. Most cases of autism the child is relatively fine but lacking social skills. So your child does not talk much or adequately express its needs....I would think in the case of poverty that might help a single mother. She doesn't have to listen to children whining about being hungry.

As for severly autistic and you knowing such a woman, that is one of those rare exceptions. If you can honestly tell me that most struggling single mothers would keep a "retarded" baby, that would be mighty impressive and I would then have to ask where you live because at least where I do, most of those babies end up in adoption agencies, Foster homes, left in the hospital, or you find them in trash cans or left out on the street abandoned when the autism begins to present around age four.

Now you said if you were single and young that it is a nice platitude, but is that not who most "single" mothers are? Younger women who baby's daddy ran off?


So now, I'm a single mother with children. I would be breast-feeding. Free and has all the nutrients my child needs. So long as I continue breast feeding, my milk will come in. The issue of food is being taken care of. I would also go to soup kitchens or churches.

Shelter, again churches, or a homeless shelter. If that fails, sleeping in a cardboard box isn't that bad so long as it is a small one. Yes, this I did and learned personally.

Entertainment, walks to the park. Throw a few sticks on the street, let people rollar blading and riding bikes hit them. ;)

Now, if I lived out in the boondocks, I'd be in paradise. I'll build my own home and slay my own dinners. Of course, you have to be able to hunt, gut, and build, fortunately, you asked me what I would do and I'm proficient in those skills. ;)



Like I said, if you want something, you'll find a way. As for me, my goal would be survival. I don't need to live lavishly, so I don't mind spending a few weeks in the same clothing if it meant I was keeping my family alive.

As a parent of autistic children, I can assure you that autistic children don't just sit quietly and not express their needs. If they're angry, hungry, frustrated, or whatever, they make as much noise as anyone else. They are harder to calm down, however.

And if you like, yes I can provide you with a slew of autism statistics. TG or email?

Well I don't have to respond as the others have handled it quite well.

Post your data here. We have people that can verify it and I have a source at work.

If you are as up on it as you imply you are, you might recall time covering it a year or so ago. The kid on the cover is the son of a coworker. He has 3 cases out of 3 children. The easiest kid is an ausburgers.

His other 2 are non communicative autistics. They both have a habit of running off as well! Got lost in two major national parks last year.

They are up on just about everything as they also run support networks.

As to the other boy. Sorry he doesn't sit quietly. If he acts up, then the other kid is really late or misses school as he is too strong for her.


So post your data here. We would love to see it.

Well I don't have to respond as the others have handled it quite well.

Post your data here. We have people that can verify it and I have a source at work.

If you are as up on it as you imply you are, you might recall time covering it a year or so ago. The kid on the cover is the son of a coworker. He has 3 cases out of 3 children. The easiest kid is an ausburgers.

His other 2 are non communicative autistics. They both have a habit of running off as well! Got lost in two major national parks last year.

They are up on just about everything as they also run support networks.

As to the other boy. Sorry he doesn't sit quietly. If he acts up, then the other kid is really late or misses school as he is too strong for her.


So post your data here. We would love to see it.

Not to mention, we have some Autism Spectrum posters on NS....

*lol* Oh you guys are too easy to upset. Seriously, take a few deep breaths, settle down. Last I checked, I think we are on the same side of the issue, but I refuse to believe that just because you grew up in poverty it is impossible to get out of poverty. I have never said it was easy, just that it was possible. Of course, you can argue anything and will find a thousand and one things to argue in this as well.<snip>
Mm-hmm. Well, sorry if my sarcasm meter wasn't sensitive enough this time, but considering the attitudes here, I think I can be forgiven for not finding your little exercise amusing.

And if you like, yes I can provide you with a slew of autism statistics. TG or email?
You can post your links right here. You made a characterization of autism in the context of an argument you were making here. I challenge you to back up that characterization or drop it. If you want to insist that raising autistic children is easy for the poor because they're quiet, you should do your backing up here, where you made the argument. Otherwise, admit you were being disrepectfully facetious in a way that added nothing to the discussion but only served to devalue it by mocking, and move on.

Poverty is about choice

But so is the 6 numbers I pick on my lottery ticket

If I win the lottery, I will be rich right on the spot

The question is, can I choose to win just because I want to?

So choices are limited by knowledge. If you don't know you don't know.

Am I saying this to justify why people should care about the poor? Not necessary. But it clearly justifies those who think begging for food from place to place, experiencing cold and starvation, or that living in a box in the street "isn't so bad". Because just like how the poor have limited knowledge about getting rich, the people who think poverty isn't so bad haven't experience poverty to it's full extend. They are essentially the living proof that limited knowledge leads to bad decisions.

Am I saying this to justify why people should care about the poor? Not necessary. But it clearly justifies those who think begging for food from place to place, experiencing cold and starvation, or that living in a box in the street "isn't so bad". Because just like how the poor have limited knowledge about getting rich, the people who think poverty isn't so bad haven't experience poverty to it's full extend. They are essentially the living proof that limited knowledge leads to bad decisions.


/thread

Am I saying this to justify why people should care about the poor? Not necessary. But it clearly justifies those who think begging for food from place to place, experiencing cold and starvation, or that living in a box in the street "isn't so bad". Because just like how the poor have limited knowledge about getting rich, the people who think poverty isn't so bad haven't experience poverty to it's full extend. They are essentially the living proof that limited knowledge leads to bad decisions.

What's this? Wisdom? Here? Ohhh my!

Two beers a day is not a bad habit according to most health studies over the past several decades,
Way to assume that I meant unhealthful when I said bad.

Since we're discussing finances, a bad habit is one that is needlessly expensive.

Remember, it's only about calories. You're wasting money.
Whether they're gaining weight is about calories. There's a lot more to nutrition than calories.

But no, since I linked weight to caloric intake and expenditure (that mass has to come from somewhere), you've decided to construct a strawman portraying my position as just being about calories for all subjects dietary. Gee, thanks.
Meanwhile, now, let's pretend you're making a rational argument and turn that ham (by the way, the cheapest cuts of meat usually keep for the least time, are already the oldest, and typically are the least healthy. But let's ignore that for now).
You already are ignoring it. Since when is cured meat among the cheapest cuts? You could find protein considerably cheaper than this ham - this is just what I managed to find in 90 seconds of looking on the internet.
Hmmm.... I see your point. Clearly, poor people are wasting money when they buy Top Ramen and make a meal that including the work involved to make it costs about a dollar and half and would certainly cause them to be overweight. Poor people get fat by wasting money. Well-proven. You got anything other points you want to "prove". Or do you simply want to admit how stupid this is?
This isn't stupid. You're completely misrepresenting my position. People get fat by consuming too many calories for their activity level. This is demonstrably true.

The point you're trying to make is that reducing that calorie count in a way that keeps them going through the day is more expensive than what they're doing. Why not just say that?

Way to assume that I meant unhealthful when I said bad.

Since we're discussing finances, a bad habit is one that is needlessly expensive.

If it's healthy, then it's not needless. So now, the poor can't do things that are healthy, have children, have faith. What else can't they do?

Oh, and I forgot, the future outcome is what determines if they made a poor decision, not what they knew at the time.

I'm not sure there is anything you can say that could make this point you're making very badly any more ridiculous.

Whether they're gaining weight is about calories. There's a lot more to nutrition than calories.

Keep repeating. Over time, it doesn't become more stupid at all. Unless of course, anyone reading knows how weight gain actually works or anything about the body.


But no, since I linked weight to caloric intake and expenditure (that mass has to come from somewhere), you've decided to construct a strawman portraying my position as just being about calories for all subjects dietary. Gee, thanks.

Liar. You did say that, but you claimed that the poor are overeating to be fat, which isn't the same as the way you've occasionally tried to reword. It's a fact that their caloric intake could be less than what is required for them to be healthy and they can be fat. It's also a fact, that often times the ONLY way to lose weight without injuring yourself is to increasing your caloric intake, occasionally requiring no other change whatsoever.

But, hey, why don't you say it one more time. The fact that you're gets less true every time you ignore everything about nutrition other than calories. You do know that information you were taught when you were 12 was meant to be built upon. You weren't supposed to freeze right there with a very basic understanding of, well, everything. People spend their entire lives learning the causes of weight-gain and the best ways to combat it. You should let them know that the need only figure out what the calorie count is for particular foods and they'd be done. "Fat people overeat." Produce that scientific paper and watch as you get laughed at for your ridiculous poor understanding of nutrition.




You already are ignoring it. Since when is cured meat among the cheapest cuts? You could find protein considerably cheaper than this ham - this is just what I managed to find in 90 seconds of looking on the internet.

Nice way to avoid my point. You acted like you were mentioning something that was cheap, even saying that they have to accept that ham even if it denies them their basic right to worship as they choose. Meanwhile, your suggested ham left them paying about a hundred dollars a day to eat or about 36K a year on food alone. Nice job suggesting food that would require an entire person's salary to purchase, before taxes.


This isn't stupid. You're completely misrepresenting my position. People get fat by consuming too many calories for their activity level. This is demonstrably true.

No, it isn't that simple. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Without increasing activity one can increase their metabolism by eating MORE in some people and thus lose weight. This is factual. I can also show you how to not change anything except starting to eat too little and cause you to gain weight, and become lethargic in the mix, including decreased ability to concentrate, to learn, to listen. Your idiotic comments about how they are overeating, just show that you're talking out of your behind.



The point you're trying to make is that reducing that calorie count in a way that keeps them going through the day is more expensive than what they're doing. Why not just say that?

Because it isn't my point. I'm talking about making them healthy, which may not require a reduced caloric intake. Your lack of understanding of nutrition doesn't change how nutrition works.

You are just a wealth of information today. I could save so much money living on Top Ramen. Now I know veggies and meat are a waste of money and time. See? That's why you are rich. You make very wise choices.

This thread makes me want to light myself on fire.

Actually he's rich because he owns a company that provides a service capable of being provided only by a select group of companies, and at a (presumed) level of quality that continues to provide him with contracts.

:D

Actually he's rich because he owns a company that provides a service capable of being provided only by a select group of companies, and at a (presumed) level of quality that continues to provide him with contracts.

:D

All kidding aside, I really did the paycheck to paycheck thing for a long time. I know a lot about nutrition and health and it still was a pretty large problem because when you're deciding between finally purchasing some meat and keeping the heat on, it's not a particularly difficult choice.

Oversimplifying absurdly complicated problems usually evidences that the person speaking is trying to justify their behavior to themselves. No one who isn't already on their side is gonna agree that the poor just need to eat less and join up for some martial arts and they'll be rich tomorrow.

I got rich from being poor with a large dose of luck, a ton of hard work, and the good fortune to remain healthy through the whole thing. The things it took to get where I am very well may take their toll on my later life.

At the same time, I did make that choice. I decided to risk my health and enjoy my life less in order to get where I am. Do I deserve what I've got? I'd say yes. Some would say no, and I'd have a hard time arguing with them.

However, I'm the wild exception. The vast majority of the rich had rich parents and much of what they have they started with. They don't deserve to worship as they see fit, or eat as they see fit, or enjoy their life more than the average poor person. They simply have more means, by the lottery of life. I don't see what harm it would do to adjust the game so more people like me could be created if they so choose and so that rich people who are behaving like monkeys with shiny objects can find their way to the streets on the first passing train.

As has been said, the system is designed so that stupidity is a luxury of the born rich. The idea that all people who behave stupidly shouldn't have equal consequences is usually promoted by people who have something to lose if the rich finally have to face the same consequences as the poor.

Poverty is about choice

But so is the 6 numbers I pick on my lottery ticket

If I win the lottery, I will be rich right on the spot

The question is, can I choose to win just because I want to?

So choices are limited by knowledge. If you don't know you don't know.

Am I saying this to justify why people should care about the poor? Not necessary. But it clearly justifies those who think begging for food from place to place, experiencing cold and starvation, or that living in a box in the street "isn't so bad". Because just like how the poor have limited knowledge about getting rich, the people who think poverty isn't so bad haven't experience poverty to it's full extend. They are essentially the living proof that limited knowledge leads to bad decisions.
I agree

Add to that analogy that place in life and opportunities can let you have more chances to choose those numbers or less depending on what it is, making it more or less likely to choose those wining numbers ...

/thread

Foolish mortal!

Threads only die when locked or deleted!

Way to assume that I meant unhealthful when I said bad.

Since we're discussing finances, a bad habit is one that is needlessly expensive.

Way to assume that this whole story is just about you, as well as misread and misapply.

I said it was a healthful (not unhealthful) habit (my thought, not my take on your thought) and that you would deny the poor access to it over issues of money. And you are repeating that here, so I guess I was right.

This isn't stupid. You're completely misrepresenting my position.


So - what follows IS your position?


People get fat by consuming too many calories for their activity level. This is demonstrably true.


No, it really isn't.

The cutting edge of nutritional science blames two things entirely unrelated to caloric intake and activity, for the bulk (pardon the pun) of weightgain, and unsheddable weight.

To whit - cortisol (stress hormone.. and not having enough to eat, or money to pay your bills is pretty stressful)) and synthetic contamination in foods - especially fastfoods and cheaply packaged foods (the most accessible foods to the poor). Synthetics leaching into food products actually change the structure of fat cells, making them effectively 'unbreakable', and inefficient as energy stores. The body compensates by forming secondary fat reserves in addition the impenetrable fat cells - robbing the body of calories during eating, and storing the energy in an unusable form that is highly resistant to removal, even with exercise.

Your grasp of the subject is... is... well, it just isn't really.

If it's healthy, then it's not needless. So now, the poor can't do things that are healthy, have children, have faith. What else can't they do?
Anything they can't afford to do.

Why is the ability to do these things your default position? If no one could do these things (imagine everyone was destitute), and then one guy found a way to do some of them, would he be required to share that ability as best he could?

You're looking at priveleges the wrong way around. The wealthy get to do things because they are wealthy. The poor aren't being deprived of anything, they're just not being granted extra stuff.

Keep repeating. Over time, it doesn't become more stupid at all. Unless of course, anyone reading knows how weight gain actually works or anything about the body.
You asked for this.
Liar. You did say that
If I said it, you can quote me. I invite you.
but you claimed that the poor are overeating to be fat, which isn't the same as the way you've occasionally tried to reword. It's a fact that their caloric intake could be less than what is required for them to be healthy and they can be fat.
True, but not relevant to my point, which remains correct.
It's also a fact, that often times the ONLY way to lose weight without injuring yourself is to increasing your caloric intake, occasionally requiring no other change whatsoever.
Read what you just said there. You've just asserted that someone with a caloric intake of X and a caloric output of Y can increase the rate of weight loss (lose weight) by consuming X+1 calories while holding caloric output at Y.

Are you sure you want to stick with that? It's demonstrably absurd.
But, hey, why don't you say it one more time. The fact that you're gets less true every time you ignore everything about nutrition other than calories. You do know that information you were taught when you were 12 was meant to be built upon. You weren't supposed to freeze right there with a very basic understanding of, well, everything. People spend their entire lives learning the causes of weight-gain and the best ways to combat it. You should let them know that the need only figure out what the calorie count is for particular foods and they'd be done. "Fat people overeat." Produce that scientific paper and watch as you get laughed at for your ridiculous poor understanding of nutrition.
I suspect you're demonstrating your "ridiculous poor undersatnding" of either thermodynamics or the English language. I'm not sure which, yet.
Nice way to avoid my point. You acted like you were mentioning something that was cheap, even saying that they have to accept that ham even if it denies them their basic right to worship as they choose. Meanwhile, your suggested ham left them paying about a hundred dollars a day to eat or about 36K a year on food alone. Nice job suggesting food that would require an entire person's salary to purchase, before taxes.
How many people are you feeding, here?

My objection was based on your characterising the meat as having characteristics that ham doesn't. It was a canned ham - those keep for quite a whole. Plus, I didn't even look for cheaper protein like beans or fish - I picked a middling product. That you leapt to the conclusion that I was proposing the cheapest meat available isn't my fault.
No, it isn't that simple. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Without increasing activity one can increase their metabolism by eating MORE in some people and thus lose weight.
Ah HA! That metabolic increase is an increase in caloric output! You're completely dodging the issue. You're objecting to my assertion that people gain weight only when caloric intake exceeds caloric output by ignoring the caloric output part of the equation.

OF COURSE you can lose weight by increasing your metabolic rate. That's activity. It burns calories.

Wow. I'm leaning toward that language issue now.
This is factual. I can also show you how to not change anything except starting to eat too little and cause you to gain weight, and become lethargic in the mix, including decreased ability to concentrate, to learn, to listen. Your idiotic comments about how they are overeating, just show that you're talking out of your behind.
Except if you do "not change anything" you can't change the metabolic rate in the way you're describing. You're COMPLETELY IGNORING that metabolic rate affects caloric output. Changing the metabolic rate is a change.
Because it isn't my point. I'm talking about making them healthy, which may not require a reduced caloric intake. Your lack of understanding of nutrition doesn't change how nutrition works.
Well then you're introducing an entirely new topic into the discussion.

At the same time, I did make that choice. I decided to risk my health and enjoy my life less in order to get where I am.
See? You escaped poverty as a direct result of your choices.

The cutting edge of nutritional science blames two things entirely unrelated to caloric intake and activity, for the bulk (pardon the pun) of weightgain, and unsheddable weight.

To whit - cortisol (stress hormone.. and not having enough to eat, or money to pay your bills is pretty stressful)) and synthetic contamination in foods - especially fastfoods and cheaply packaged foods (the most accessible foods to the poor). Synthetics leaching into food products actually change the structure of fat cells, making them effectively 'unbreakable', and inefficient as energy stores. The body compensates by forming secondary fat reserves in addition the impenetrable fat cells - robbing the body of calories during eating, and storing the energy in an unusable form that is highly resistant to removal, even with exercise.
I'm going to ask you the same question. Are you asserting that the mass of a person will not necessarily rise when total caloric intake (from all sources) exceeds total caloric output (including basic life functions like digestion and breathing)? And conversely, are you asserting that a person will not necessarily lose weight then total caloric intake (from all sources) is exceeded by total caloric output (including basic life functions like digestion and breathing)?

If you're disagreeing with me, that's exactly what you're saying.

Anything they can't afford to do.

Ah. I see. And if the reason they can't afford it is the governmental system that has stymied upward mobility, we can't talk about that. What level of healthy things should we not consider critical? You're already admitted that poor people don't deserve to take care of their health like rich people do.


Why is the ability to do these things your default position? If no one could do these things (imagine everyone was destitute), and then one guy found a way to do some of them, would he be required to share that ability as best he could?

You're looking at priveleges the wrong way around. The wealthy get to do things because they are wealthy. The poor aren't being deprived of anything, they're just not being granted extra stuff.

Because, everyone isn't destitute. We've got more than plenty of resources and the only reason anyone isn't getting enough food and enough time to enjoy their lives is because someone else is profitting off of taking it from them.

"extra stuff" meaning anything they can't afford to do. Extra stuff being worshipping freely, caring for themselves adequately, having children, or basically any kind of living. I didn't realize religion, health and children were priveleges. I suppose then, since they're priveleges, we can create licensing for such things. Right?

I'm going to ask you the same question. Are you asserting that the mass of a person will not necessarily rise when total caloric intake (from all sources) exceeds total caloric output (including basic life functions like digestion and breathing)? And conversely, are you asserting that a person will not necessarily lose weight then total caloric intake (from all sources) is exceeded by total caloric output (including basic life functions like digestion and breathing)?

If you're disagreeing with me, that's exactly what you're saying.

You're statement is overly basic and you've slowly changed it. You claimed specifically that if you're fat you're eating too much. Trying to continually reword it till it's mildly true but utterly useless doesn't help your point.

The point is that a person who is fat isn't necessarily overeating. That you still don't get that this is the reason we're even discussing calories and trying desperately to be right about, well, anything, even if it doesn't help your claim, is laughable.

Going back to what you initially argued, that poor people who are fat are spending too much money of food, how does your new claim aid in that assertion?

You asked for this.

If I said it, you can quote me. I invite you.

Okay, just give me a moment.

True, but not relevant to my point, which remains correct.

Nothing about your point is correct. That you keep changing it just demonstrates your dishonesty and your desperate need for something correct to cling to. Don't worry, you've almost remolded it enough to have a grain of truth.

Read what you just said there. You've just asserted that someone with a caloric intake of X and a caloric output of Y can increase the rate of weight loss (lose weight) by consuming X+1 calories while holding caloric output at Y.

Nope. Your lack of understanding is just that. I didn't say anything about their output. I said they don't change anything. Their habits remain the same except for a change in the amount of food they eat. In many cases the very act of increasing your calorie intake can increase your metabolism and as such the number of calories you burn. Dude, seriously, read a book and stop saying wildly stupid things.



Are you sure you want to stick with that? It's demonstrably absurd.

Strawman. Now try replying to what I actually said. The only thing the person changed is they ate more. There are effects of that eating and one of them is an increase in metabolism, but it's not something they actively changed. Again, do you really wish to keep proving how little you understand about nutrition.


I suspect you're demonstrating your "ridiculous poor undersatnding" of either thermodynamics or the English language. I'm not sure which, yet.

Yes, clearly, the issue is mine. Especially since your inaccurately treating the human body like a closed system and acting like the energy that it gets is from food. This is demonstrably false.


How many people are you feeding, here?

My objection was based on your characterising the meat as having characteristics that ham doesn't. It was a canned ham - those keep for quite a whole. Plus, I didn't even look for cheaper protein like beans or fish - I picked a middling product. That you leapt to the conclusion that I was proposing the cheapest meat available isn't my fault.

I didn't leap to any conclusion. I simply demonstrated the problems with your claims. That you want to focus on useless details that don't aid your point is amusing, but it doesn't change that it's expensive to eat properly. Not that you understand the first thing about nutrition as demonstrated in this thread.


Ah HA! That metabolic increase is an increase in caloric output! You're completely dodging the issue. You're objecting to my assertion that people gain weight only when caloric intake exceeds caloric output by ignoring the caloric output part of the equation.

OF COURSE you can lose weight by increasing your metabolic rate. That's activity. It burns calories.

Uh, duh. You keep trying to change the point. That's always been what I was saying. You said that people are overeating if they're fat. I pointed out that fat isn't simply caused by too many calories. In many cases, simply increasing your caloric intake increases your metabolism. That you don't realize this after pages of explaining just demonstrates the weakness of your understanding.




Wow. I'm leaning toward that language issue now.

Except if you do "not change anything" you can't change the metabolic rate in the way you're describing. You're COMPLETELY IGNORING that metabolic rate affects caloric output. Changing the metabolic rate is a change.

Well then you're introducing an entirely new topic into the discussion.

Not change anything refers to the habits of the person, obviously. You're right it's a language problem, but it's not my language problem. Shall I point to the number of times I've pointed out that I was referring to an increase in metabolism.

Time to spend some times on quotes, since you're either delightfully obtuse or a bold-faced liar.

Yet another thing where you understanding or at least your representation of your understanding is too basic. What you eat effects what you expend. As such some more expensive foods allow me to eat enough food to be energetic without gaining weight. However most of the cheaper foods, non-organic foods offer up very little in the way of your metabolism and as such cause your body to think it's starving and conserve calories. Many people whose diet I've helped with lost weight by consuming more food.

In otherwords, lots of people have to consume calories their body automatically conserves just to get enough of the nutrients their bodies need. Calories are only a small part of the equation. If you don't know this, perhaps now is a good time to accept you don't know what you're talking about and stop typing.

You'll notice that this explains that I'm referencing metabolism at the very start of the argument over two weeks ago.

Maybe I can't refute it to you....

Imagine for a second that a food source can be metabolised into two basic products - one which can be used, and one which is a form of 'junk' material that will simply accumulate.

Further: imagine that some food sources yield higher proportions of one than the other.

Further: imagine that the cheapest and most available food sources, are heavily inclined to produce the latter product. Junk that accumulates and provides no value to the metabolism. Indeed - it acts as ballast.

All of a sudden, calorific values are irrelevent - because we aren't discussing equally metabolisable products. The only impact of calorific value, is if the energy is USED, which our 'junk material'... isn't.


Conclusion - eating even small amounts of the 'poor qaulity food' will do what? It won't increase the energy yield, allow you to do more work, or provide benefits - it will, indeed, gradually ballast the machinery. You could, effectively, starve to death on a high calorie diet.

From GnI, to which my reply was, Damn, you said it first.

No, it isn't that simple. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Without increasing activity one can increase their metabolism by eating MORE in some people and thus lose weight. This is factual. I can also show you how to not change anything except starting to eat too little and cause you to gain weight, and become lethargic in the mix, including decreased ability to concentrate, to learn, to listen. Your idiotic comments about how they are overeating, just show that you're talking out of your behind.

I mentioned metabolism several times explicitly or responded to people who did. Shall I go back and find all the times I references the way foods cause you to use calories or do you want to admit how idiotic this current tact is. If you read the bolded part and you didn't understand that I was referring to the effect of optomizing your caloric intake, then you simply aren't reading. The language problem is yours.

See? You escaped poverty as a direct result of your choices.

Had I remained in poverty, it cannot be said it was due to my choices. My choices remaining the same could have still left me in poverty, if any of a million lucky events had occurred differently. I mean literally tiny little moments that would have entirely changed my life. Which is what we're discussing in this thread. Thanks for playing.

Now for the quote of where you started before you tried to alter your argument. *searches*

I said nothing of the sort.

Now you're conflating "anyone can" with "anyone will".

That simply demonstrates that choices matter. Many poor people make choices that prevent them from excaping poverty. Opportunities may arise of which they cannot take advantage, because they've made bad choices like spending too much money on tobacco, alcohol, or food.

And regarding being fat, it's basic thermodynamics that you gain weight if and only if you consume more calories than you expend. And if you're doing that, you could save money by consuming fewer calories.
If you're not so poor that you can't overeat, you're not that poor.
One claim that reducing calories would necessarily getting them closer to the calories they need.

Well clearly their choices can impact that. Poor people who live austerely would have a better shot at escaping poverty (see the MTAE example some months ago). Poor people who waste money on things like tobacco or overeating (I don't understand how fat people can be poor) would have a lesser chance.
We explained how you can actually be undereating and fat. You tried to ignore all other factors and make it just about calories in. Despite continually mentioning calories out, you claimed the solution to the problem is necessarily that you reduce your caloric intake. It's been explained to you repeatedly that reducing your calories or increasing them, or keeping them the same while changing your diet all can affect the output. OVER and OVER and OVER.

That you keep trying to ignore that you claimed that the cause of being fat is overeating and trying to make that somehow fit with the laws of thermodynamics while ignoring all factors that would affect how that law applies is your bag, and why we've shown you to be wrong repeatedly.

Shall I keep going or are you interested in being embarrassed further? I'm happy to provide more evidence of your rather pathetic attempts to pretend we're arguing something different than explicitly explain or that you are.

Nope. Your lack of understanding is just that. I didn't say anything about their output. I said they don't change anything.
So "output" is not a subset of "anything". That's your position? Are you listening to yourself?
Their habits remain the same except for a change in the amount of food they eat. In many cases the very act of increasing your calorie intake can increase your metabolism and as such the number of calories you burn. Dude, seriously, read a book and stop saying wildly stupid things.
I've never asserted that wasn't true. Ever since we started talking about calories I've discussed the difference between intake and output. Only you have discussed calories on their own.
Strawman. Now try replying to what I actually said. The only thing the person changed is they ate more. There are effects of that eating and one of them is an increase in metabolism, but it's not something they actively changed. Again, do you really wish to keep proving how little you understand about nutrition.
The change has to be active? Nice ex post facto addition to your claim.

My little equation describes exactly what you said. I'm the one on your side on this one. You're the one who's ignoring scientific reality.
Yes, clearly, the issue is mine. Especially since your inaccurately treating the human body like a closed system and acting like the energy that it gets is from food. This is demonstrably false.
The assumption that I was only talking about food was yours. I was talking about energy (hence my use of the term calorie, a unit of energy).
I didn't leap to any conclusion. I simply demonstrated the problems with your claims. That you want to focus on useless details that don't aid your point is amusing, but it doesn't change that it's expensive to eat properly. Not that you understand the first thing about nutrition as demonstrated in this thread.
The details are useless in supporting my claims, but they're central to refuting yours.
Uh, duh. You keep trying to change the point. That's always been what I was saying. You said that people are overeating if they're fat.
I said they were consuming too many calories compared to their expenditure.

We appear to agree on this point. I don't see why you felt the need to disagree with me on it.
I pointed out that fat isn't simply caused by too many calories. In many cases, simply increasing your caloric intake increases your metabolism. That you don't realize this after pages of explaining just demonstrates the weakness of your understanding.
You repeatedly stated that the difference was not causeed by consuming more calories than they expend, but now that's your central point (as it was when you started).

I'm only still doing this because you objected to my thermodynamics. Your addition of the word "simply" to your remarks changes them significantly.

Just because I didn't mention the metabolism didn't mean I wasn't counting it as a factor in calorie output. Unlike you, when I say "all" I mean it to include everything.
Not change anything refers to the habits of the person, obviously.
That's not obvious at all. Again, this is a language deficiency, and it's yours.

How can option one be winning?

So "output" is not a subset of "anything". That's your position? Are you listening to yourself?

I told you what "anything" referred to. It's a common term that's meaning is determined by context. Here I was talking about her habits. She hasn't changed her level of excercise or her level of activity. She simply changed her diet and lost weight. Simple. Direct. And the same point as has been made for two weeks.


I've never asserted that wasn't true. Ever since we started talking about calories I've discussed the difference between intake and output. Only you have discussed calories on their own.

Hehe. You claimed that if you're fat you simply need to eat less to correct it, and you claimed that to be fat you must overeat. Neither of these are true. They sparked the conversation and you're trying to divorce the argument from what we're telling you is incorrect and it's pathetic.



The change has to be active? Nice ex post facto addition to your claim.

It's called context. People gather context from reading. It's pretty obvious that I was speaking to her actions. Her metabolism is not something she directly controls, but is controlled by other factors, like stress, health, diet and excercise. I addressed the fact that she only changed her diet and only by increasing her calories. That her metabolism increased has been the entire point and it's been being repeated as the point for two weeks.

Seriously, you're not even fooling yourself at this point. You lost. This is sad.


My little equation describes exactly what you said. I'm the one on your side on this one. You're the one who's ignoring scientific reality.

Um, no, it's a strawman. I wasn't addressing a change or lack thereof in output. At all. I addressed diet as the only thing the PERSON changed.


The assumption that I was only talking about food was yours. I was talking about energy (hence my use of the term calorie, a unit of energy).

Yes, and we were addressing that your claims about energy don't address nutritional needs, real output of foods, metabolism and you claim about how fat people need to eat less. Again, you're trying to divorce your support of your original claim from the claim itself. It's pathetic.



The details are useless in supporting my claims, but they're central to refuting yours.

My claim was that you cannot simply claim that fat people need to eat less. I've shown several other factors that could make it so a fat person actually needs to consume more calories in order to lose weight. That you've distorted that into something you can attack demonstrates the weakness of your argument, and your ability to argue, not mine.



I said they were consuming too many calories compared to their expenditure.

And I said that was an overly simplistic way to address the problem and you said it in support of your initial claim that fat people overeat. Again, you try to divorce your argument from your claim. Still doesn't work.


We appear to agree on this opint. I don't see why you felt the need to disagree with me on it.

I didn't. I said it doesnt' mean what you think it means. I said that you're wrong that limiting input would solve the problem, or that too much input caused it. In all cases the output and the input are interdependent. That's why your attempt to isolate the input is ludicrous and this has been explained multiple times.


You repeatedly stated that the difference was not causeed by consuming more calories than they expend, but now that's your central point (as it was when you started).

I repeatedly stated that said claim was overly simplistic and does not address the problem. I've told you were wrong because you repeatedly claimed that simply reducing the input solves the problem, but it doesn't address that the variables are interdependent. Would you rather argue this in another language, because repeated references to metabolism and how the input affects which calories you burn and how many you burn seems to have confused into thinking no one was addressing such things? Would spanish be easier? Latin? You don't seem to be following simple English turns of phrases like METABOLISM and NUTRITION and HOW FAT IS STOREd and YOUR EXPLANTION IS TO SIMPLISTIC TO ADDRESS HOW IT REALLY WORKS. Those phrase are rather important discussion.




I'm only still doing this because you objected to my thermodynamics.

Just because I didn't mention the metabolism didn't mean I wasn't counting it as a factor in calorie output. Unlike you, when I say "all" I mean it to include everything.

That's not obvious at all. Again, this is a language deficiency, and it's yours.

No, I objected to your use of thermodynamics to support your idiotic claim that fat people simply need to reduce intake.

Now, I'll ask again. How does your overly simplistic formula support your repeated claims that fat people eat too much.

One claim that reducing calories would necessarily getting them closer to the calories they need.
I was holding output the same, exactly as you were.

If all else isn't equal, you could have just said that from the start and saved us all a lot of trouble.

Then we'd be discussing whether these people could artificially increase their metabolic rates, perhaps through the use of thermogenic agents.
We explained how you can actually be undereating and fat. You tried to ignore all other factors and make it just about calories in.
I always dealt with calories in relative to calories out. That's in the passage you quoted.
Despite continually mentioning calories out, you claimed the solution to the problem is necessarily that you reduce your caloric intake.
No I didn't. I proposed it as an available solution. Your objection is that there are better options.

So why didn't you just say that rather than insisting that I was incorrect in asserting that calories and caloires out matter relative to each other?
It's been explained to you repeatedly that reducing your calories or increasing them, or keeping them the same while changing your diet all can affect the output. OVER and OVER and OVER.
And I didn't care because you weren't telling me something I didn't already know. It was off-topic.
That you keep trying to ignore that you claimed that the cause of being fat is overeating and trying to make that somehow fit with the laws of thermodynamics while ignoring all factors that would affect how that law applies is your bag, and why we've shown you to be wrong repeatedly.
I've only been wrong if you grossly oversimplify my position.

I was holding output the same, exactly as you were.

No, I wasn't. I was holding activity as the same. I was addressing reality, not your attempt to grossly oversimplify the way things work. In fact, shall I quote the number of times I said regarding the human nutritional equation the way you were is a gross oversimplification? I'll be happy to provide qutoes.



If all else isn't equal, you could have just said that from the start and saved us all a lot of trouble.

I did repeatedly. I quoted it back to you. I've been saying since the beginning that I was only adjusting their diet. Their diet has consequences and that you'd like to ignore them is your bag. I've pointed out repeatedly that diet affects metabolism and have never said that I was holding ther metabolisim constant. That it wouldn't stay constant and that the variables are interdependent has always been my point. And the point of everyone arguing with you.




Then we'd be discussing whether these people could artificially increase their metabolic rates, perhaps through the use of thermogenic agents.

Um, no. You claimed that if they are fat they are overeating. This is factually not true. Often times increasing their eating could cause a weight loss, which directly defies your claim. There is no twisting and squirming that changes that if increasing your caloric intake causes you to lose weight, then overeating wasn't the problem.



I always dealt with calories in relative to calories out. That's in the passage you quoted.

I know. And we've always pointed out that your claim that if they were fat too much input is the problem is what we were addressing. You've since trired to pretend your argument wasn't related to you claim, but no one here is stupid enough to believe you. Not even you.


No I didn't. I proposed it as an available solution. Your objection is that there are better options.

No, I pointed out that it is often not an available solution, unless you're not going to nonsensically claim that killing yourself is a solution to obesity. You claimed that if they are fat they are eating too much. Squirm, friend. But I quoted you saying it and you've been defending it since. You stated as always true and it's not. That was the objection you got and are getting. No one is falling for your attempt to change the subject.




So why didn't you just say that rather than insisting that I was incorrect in asserting that calories and caloires out matter relative to each other?

And I didn't care because you weren't telling me something I didn't already know. It was off-topic.

I've only been wrong if you grossly oversimplify my position.

I insisted you were incorrect that addressing the problem is as simple as looking at that equation. You claimed that equation proves your assertion that decreasing the input is the solution. It's often not, and that equation is too simple to show that.

I claim your position was that fat people eat too much. I quoted you stating it and defending that position. That's not an oversimplification. It's distinctly what you said. Your backpedaling does not change it.

I told you what "anything" referred to. It's a common term that's meaning is determined by context. Here I was talking about her habits. She hasn't changed her level of excercise or her level of activity. She simply changed her diet and lost weight. Simple. Direct. And the same point as has been made for two weeks.

Hehe. You claimed that if you're fat you simply need to eat less to correct it, and you claimed that to be fat you must overeat. Neither of these are true. They sparked the conversation and you're trying to divorce the argument from what we're telling you is incorrect and it's pathetic.

It's called context. People gather context from reading. It's pretty obvious that I was speaking to her actions. Her metabolism is not something she directly controls, but is controlled by other factors, like stress, health, diet and excercise. I addressed the fact that she only changed her diet and only by increasing her calories. That her metabolism increased has been the entire point and it's been being repeated as the point for two weeks.
It's a thought experiment. Input and output cover all inputs and all outputs.
Um, no, it's a strawman. I wasn't addressing a change or lack thereof in output. At all. I addressed diet as the only thing the PERSON changed.
Then you should have said that.
Yes, and we were addressing that your claims about energy don't address nutritional needs
And that matters, but I wasn't objecting to that aspect of your points. I was objecting to your assertion that (X+1)-Y is somehow smaller than X-Y where X and Y are positive values.
My claim was that you cannot simply claim that fat people need to eat less.
Again, that "simply" word matters a lot in this sentence, and you weren't using it when you started.
I've shown several other factors that could make it so a fat person actually needs to consume more calories in order to lose weight.
And they were beside the point.

We were arguing a fairly fine point here, but you took it upon yourself to defend the honour of poor fat people, something I wasn't attacking.
That's why your attempt to isolate the input is ludicrous
We isolate the input so we can examine what the input does, all else being equal.
I repeatedly stated that said claim was overly simplistic and does not address the problem. I've told you were wrong because you repeatedly claimed that simply reducing the input solves the problem, but it doesn't address that the variables are interdependent.
This only matters if it's not possible to adjust the metabolic rate independently (for example, with the use of thermogenics).

Yours is the overly simplistic position now.

It's a thought experiment. Input and output cover all inputs and all outputs.


No, it isn't. We're talking about how people actually function. That you're not following that in a discussion where you made claims about fat people, that we're actually referring to the true function of people, is your problem, not mine.


Then you should have said that.


I did. Repeatedly. And I just quoted it back to you. That I didn't repeat it each time in fear you had the memory of a goldfish doesn't change my point.



And that matters, but I wasn't objecting to that aspect of your points. I was objecting to your assertion that (X+1)-Y is somehow smaller than X-Y where X and Y are positive values.


Amusing. Just keep trying. You weren't objecting to us. We were objecting to you. We were responding to YOUR claim. A claim that said that limiting input will solve the problem and a claim that too much input caused it. Both are false and we demonstrated why. When you said it, you weren't talking about a thought experiment. You were talking about real poor people. Turning it into to some unrealistic scenario doesn't address your claim at all, which is why no one but you is trying to do so.



Again, that "simply" word matters a lot in this sentence, and you weren't using it when you started.


No, when I started two weeks ago, I made it clear what my objection was and it never changed. The only person that ever changed anything was you and it was always a ludicrous point. That you cannot tie together the thoughts of an argument is a failure.


And they were beside the point.

We were arguing a fairly fine point here, but you took it upon yourself to defend the honour of poor fat people, something I wasn't attacking.

We isolate the input so we can examine what the input does, all else being equal.

No, WE weren't. WE were arguing that your claim about limiting the input is overly simplistic. WE were always arguing that. That you want to pretend WE said something else, because your initial point is provably wrong, is YOU, not WE.

You cannot isolate the input in the real world. We were talking about the real world. OUR point all along is that claiming you can isolate the input denies that it is the REAL world and doesn't work that way. Get it now.

Seriously, this is just stupid. Are you treally trying to claim that you can isolate the input for fat people and that's how they got fat? If not, then you've changed the subject and then blamed us for sticking to the point.

This only matters if it's not possible to adjust the metabolic rate independently (for example, with the use of thermogenics).

Yours is the overly simplistic position now.

[This point is so stupid I'm going to address is seprately.]

False. We aren't talking about the metabolic rate independently. We were talking about consumption. You claimed they could simply reduce consumption and solve the problem and that it was caused by overconsumption. Neither is true. The existence of thermogenic products don't factor in at all.

How does the existence of thermogenics address that poor people are fat because they eat too much and as such they can save money by buying less food? If the answer is, it doesn't, then it's not relevant.

I've been saying since the beginning that I was only adjusting their diet.
That's the problem. You've been asserting that you're only adjusting their diet (caloric input), but at the same time pointing out that you're indirectly adjusting their caloric output.

You can't do both. Your claims were nonsensical.
Their diet has consequences and that you'd like to ignore them is your bag.
You just said you were ignoring them, and that you're not.
I've pointed out repeatedly that diet affects metabolism and have never said that I was holding ther metabolisim constant.
Changing only diet holds their metabolism constant. That's what "only" means.
That it wouldn't stay constant and that the variables are interdependent has always been my point.
Then don't use words like "only" so indiscriminately.
Um, no. You claimed that if they are fat they are overeating. This is factually not true.
I said they got fat by taking in more calories than they expended. This is factually guaranteed, and you've agreed.

I then said they could take in fewer calories and lose weight. Any supposition as to what I was doing with the other variables (holding them still, letting them float, ignoring them completely) you made up out of nothing.
Often times increasing their eating could cause a weight loss
Letting other variables float, yes.
which directly defies your claim.
Only if I was letting the other variables float, which you have no reason to believe (in fact, this would have been evidence I wasn't doing that).
You claimed that if they are fat they are eating too much.
Too much relative to their output. That was included from the beginning (you quoted it).
I insisted you were incorrect that addressing the problem is as simple as looking at that equation. You claimed that equation proves your assertion that decreasing the input is the solution. It's often not, and that equation is too simple to show that.
Only because you're assuming the other variables have to be left to float.

That's the problem. You've been asserting that you're only adjusting their diet (caloric input), but at the same time pointing out that you're indirectly adjusting their caloric output.

You can't do both. Your claims were nonsensical.

You just said you were ignoring them, and that you're not.

Changing only diet holds their metabolism constant. That's what "only" means.

Then don't use words like "only" so indiscriminately.

I said they got fat by taking in more calories than they expended. This is factually guaranteed, and you've agreed.

I then said they could take in fewer calories and lose weight. Any supposition as to what I was doing with the other variables (holding them still, letting them float, ignoring them completely) you made up out of nothing.

Letting other variables float, yes.

Only if I was letting the other variables float, which you have no reason to believe (in fact, this would have been evidence I wasn't doing that).

Too much relative to their output. That was included from the beginning (you quoted it).

Only because you're assuming the other variables have to be left to float.

Jesus, seriously, how does a non-real world example that YOU'RE trying to make address poor people? It doesn't. You keep trying to make this not apply to the real world.

Other variables HAVE to be left to float because in real people they do. You can't control stress exactly, or metabolism, or types of nutrition from the back of that equation. They are all INPUT. All of them. To pretend as if the input and output are controlled completely seperately is not realistic. You're attempting to make an argument in the real world and it's wrong in the real world. Attempting to make it into a fake world so you can be right, doesn't change that in OUR world, the one most of us are content to live in, how much you consume is not the only factor in weight problems and your claim that it is the cause and the solution is provably false.

False. We aren't talking about the metabolic rate independently.
We weren't talking about the metabolic rate at all. You just went ahead and assumed interdependence.
If the answer is, it doesn't, then it's not relevant.
It is relevant because we were discussing a side point (the X+1-Y equation).

We weren't talking about the metabolic rate at all. You just went ahead and assumed interdependence.

It is relevant because we were discussing a side point (the X+1-Y equation).

Interesting, I quoted myself talking about metabolic rate. That I didn't mention it in that post, doesn't make it go away. You suddenly isolated my one post from the rest of my argument, which given how arguments work, is evidence that you're being dishonest. The only one claiming this is a side point is you. It was brought up BY ME, to address your claim about fat people overeating. It's an argument to demonstrate why you're wrong. It's not an aside. It's the argument against your claim.

The claim was that fat people overeat. The existence of thermogenic products don't address that point, and thus it is not relevant. How things work if we could isolate all but input in robots is not relevant. How things would work if you could reduce caloric intake as much as you like without consideration for health and potential death is not relevant.

We are talking about poor people and your claim that they got fat by overeating. Only dealing with how real people function and whether how much they eat is the only input that affects weight gain or loss is ALL that is relevant. If the conclusion is that things other than the amount of food they eat affect weight gain and loss, then your claim was wrong. You've recently admitted that this conclusion is correct, and as such, we're quite finished. Your point about fat people overeating was wrong. We accept. Thanks for playing.

When you said it, you weren't talking about a thought experiment. You were talking about real poor people.
How could you possibly claim to know what I meant if I didn't say it?

This is starting to remind me of the strict constructionism discussion.
Are you treally trying to claim that you can isolate the input for fat people and that's how they got fat?
No, I'm not claiming that.

I'm willing to concede that my point about them reducing intake isn't really a useful solution to the poverty question. The reason this went on for so long is because you were disputing basic thermodynamics and assuming all sorts of things about my position (like what I was doing with other variables).

The claim was that fat people overeat.
The claim was actually that fat poor people could save money by eating less. That's been shown to be untrue.

But it's demonstrably true that fat people overeat. That's been what we're arguing about. Fat people consume more calories than they expend.

You're not actually disputing that. You're just misusing the word expend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Causes_and_mechanisms

Most researchers have concluded that the combination of an excessive nutrient intake and a sedentary lifestyle are the main cause for the rapid acceleration of obesity in Western society in the last quarter of the 20th century.

This should clear up all this pointless blithering and bambling about obesity.

The claim was actually that fat poor people could save money by eating less. That's been shown to be untrue.
Thank you. That's the first time you conceded that point.


But it's demonstrably true that fat people overeat. That's been what we're arguing about. Fat people consume more calories than they expend.

You're not actually disputing that. You're just misusing the word expend.

No, it's not demonstrably true. That's what you don't get. If I can change my diet without chaning the amount of food I was eating, but only the nature of that food and lose weight or stop gaining weight, then my weight gain was caused by poor diet, not overeating.

In fact, if I increase the amount of food I'm eating and I lose weight, without changing the nature of the food, then I was undereating and gaining weight.

Again, eating is not equal to the input in thermodynamics, which was the basis for the argument. Eating is a part of the input. It's also a part of the output since it's an activity. Since it affects nutrition, it also affects the amount of internal activities that will affect the output.

You're trying to pretend that eating is the only input or that you can isolate it to an input and that, by fact, is false. The real world doesn't work that way.

I'm misusing the word "expend"? Where? Quote me. Your argument is ludicrous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Causes_and_mechanisms

Most researchers have concluded that the combination of an excessive nutrient intake and a sedentary lifestyle are the main cause for the rapid acceleration of obesity in Western society in the last quarter of the 20th century.

This should clear up all this pointless blithering and bambling about obesity.

What that means is that when taking the population as a whole, it's a primary cause. Something that no one has disputed. He said he doesn't know how a poor person can be fat because they must be overspending on food. That's different. That doesn't assume that most people are overeating or a lot of people are overeating, but that if you are fat you must be overeating. Not the same thing.

Meanwhile, when it comes to things that are commonly held, Wikipedia is wildly unreliable. It's much more likely to hold popular theories than correct theories. I would look for better sources, except here, what they said doesn't dispute the claim that you cannot assign it as the cause for all people.

How could you possibly claim to know what I meant if I didn't say it?

This is starting to remind me of the strict constructionism discussion.

You did say it. That you didn't make it clear that you were leaving the real world is your issue.

Meanwhile, we've constantly remained in the real world, and I often cited real examples. It's typical to treat posts as related arguments unless told otherwise, not the other way around. You are doing the opposite and getting annoyed that I'm not.

What that means is that when taking the population as a whole, it's a primary cause. Something that no one has disputed. He said he doesn't know how a poor person can be fat because they must be overspending on food. That's different. That doesn't assume that most people are overeating or a lot of people are overeating, but that if you are fat you must be overeating. Not the same thing.


But why can't you apply this to the population of the poor, which in itself is a big population. What is it about the poor which would change this primary cause?


Meanwhile, when it comes to things that are commonly held, Wikipedia is wildly unreliable. It's much more likely to hold popular theories than correct theories. I would look for better sources, except here, what they said doesn't dispute the claim that you cannot assign it as the cause for all people.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12954 here is a better source.

Very often poverty occurs when the government in power becomes overtly corrupt, and oppresses the opposition, an example: Zimbabwe. :(

But why can't you apply this to the population of the poor, which in itself is a big population. What is it about the poor which would change this primary cause?

Because he referenced something specific. It would be like if I said, "I don't understand how poor people can walk with a limp. They have healthy legs." All I'd have to show that some poor person limp who didn't have healthy legs, and it would make what was said untrue. The statement is a gross generalization and all it takes it to show that it's not always true and it falls to fallacy.

In this case he said he didn't understand how poor people can be fat, because they can't afford to overeat. The fact is that if you took overeating out of the equation, some poor people would still be fat, which was the point of my objection and that of several other people.


http://www.nber.org/papers/w12954 here is a better source.

Again, it doesn't change the point. I'm saying that while it applies in some cases, even most cases, it does not apply in all cases.

The primary cause of deaths in car accidents is a lack of seatbelts. That doesn't mean EVERY death is caused by seatbelts or even close.

In this case he said he didn't understand how poor people can be fat, because they can't afford to overeat. The fact is that if you took overeating out of the equation, some poor people would still be fat, which was the point of my objection and that of several other people.


I'm not utterly convinced Llewdor is saying this. But it's pointless really to argue about whether in some cases it's not because of overeating, because that doesn't really change Llewdor's original point, since the majority of cases are because of over eating, and thus the majority of the obese poor shouldn't be spending their money on so much food. This argument is really a digression, there is no need to fill the page with quotes over it.

Thank you. That's the first time you conceded that point.
You defeated it pretty handily, so I just let it drop.

It was when you said that fat people couldn't lose weight by reducing the calories they take in when I felt the need to stay in this one.

You were actually arguing that poor fat people couldn't lose weight by reducing the calories they take in while letting other variables like metabolic rate float, but you left out the emboldened parts.

Once I managed to figure out what you were trying to say, you were obviously correct (you were basically rephrasing your refutation of my poverty argument). But since you were saying it so badly, I felt the need to point that out until you accepted it.

Letting the other variables float is a very important part of your point, but you didn't actually include it in any of your remarks. I want you to recognise how much confusion you created as a result.

You defeated it pretty handily, so I just let it drop.

It was when you said that fat people couldn't lose weight by reducing the calories they take in when I felt the need to stay in this one.

You were actually arguing that poor fat people couldn't lose weight by reducing the calories they take in while letting other variables like metabolic rate float, but you left out the emboldened parts.

Once I managed to figure out what you were trying to say, you were obviously correct (you were basically rephrasing your refutation of my poverty argument). But since you were saying it so badly, I felt the need to point that out until you accepted it.

Letting the other variables float is a very important part of your point, but you didn't actually include it in any of your remarks. I want you to recognise how much confusion you created as a result.

No, I didn't. I specifically stated that sometimes changing their diet or increasing the amount of food they eat will increase their metabolism. So did GnI. You changed arguments at some point, but as you didn't say that you conceded the original point, we were still arguing as if they were all connected. After a point, I stopped making the point about metabolism in every post, because it was overkill.

I wasn't stating it badly. I was expecting you to view an argument with no breaks or no obvious shift as a consistent argument. You broke the argument someone where in your mind without making it clear you'd done so or that you thought I'd done so. I was on the same argument the whole time, just changing my examples or the way I explained it. I never tried to do someont as ludcrous as lock down the other variables, because the only things you can affect is behaviors of a person. Locking the variables absent of behaviors is not possible. When speaking to diet and nutrition, it's usually apparent that you're talking about the real world, and that you're discussing behaviors and not just assuming things about medications or magical unicorns.

That I wasn't locking the other variables should have been obvious since it would be a deviation from both my expressed claims about how diet directly affects metabolism and from my expressed claims about how REAL people work.

I'm not utterly convinced Llewdor is saying this. But it's pointless really to argue about whether in some cases it's not because of overeating, because that doesn't really change Llewdor's original point, since the majority of cases are because of over eating, and thus the majority of the obese poor shouldn't be spending their money on so much food. This argument is really a digression, there is no need to fill the page with quotes over it.

Well, actually, if you'd like to debate whether poor people might have reason to be slightly different from the general population, I'm quite certain I can oblige you.

Let's assume we're talking about people who work and are in poverty, real poverty, because that's what Llewdor and I were discussing. We were generally talking about your average person, actually, so not assuming any special diseases or special handicaps.

So you have a person on a knife's edge financially. There is essentially no stressor they are releived of by the nature of being poor, but there are clearly stresses added. Okay, that's one reason for them to be overweight, that would be increased from the general population as a whole. They have additional stresses and stress is known to cause weight gain.

That financial knife's edge also increases their need to work more often, which decreases their time to prepare food. Another known cause of weight gain is that you spend less time preparing food. (Two reasons. Pre-packaged food tends to be less healthy and the faster ways of preparing foods tend to be less healthy.) GnI gave a good explanation of how exactly this fact increases your weight.

Also, healthy food tends to be more expensive. They're poor. Logically, there is a perfectly legitimate explanation for why they would deviate from the general population.

Basically, in the impovershed population you have tons of reasons why they would vary from a general study. You'd do better to focus on studies focused on the poor. That poor people are more at risk that everyone else isn't a given, but there certainly is enough evidence to deny the assumption that your average person and your average poor person would be equal in all things related to weight gain or even remotely so.

I'm not utterly convinced Llewdor is saying this. But it's pointless really to argue about whether in some cases it's not because of overeating, because that doesn't really change Llewdor's original point, since the majority of cases are because of over eating, and thus the majority of the obese poor shouldn't be spending their money on so much food. This argument is really a digression, there is no need to fill the page with quotes over it.
If the vast majority of poor people fall in the group you're describing, then I was right all along.

If a significant portion of poor people, however, are caught in the metabolistc catch-22 Jocabia describes, then my assertion that "almost all" fat poor people can save money by buying less food doesn't fly.

No, I didn't. I specifically stated that sometimes changing their diet or increasing the amount of food they eat will increase their metabolism. So did GnI. You changed arguments at some point, but as you didn't say that you conceded the original point, we were still arguing as if they were all connected. After a point, I stopped making the point about metabolism in every post, because it was overkill.
I was repeatedly told that I didn't understand how thermodynamics worked, and that the human body wasn't as simple as calories in and calories out.

But it is, and it always was, and you agree with me.

But this assertion that my calories description didn't describe people is to what I was objecting. If total calories expended by the body for all purposes are exceeded by total calories absorbed by the body from all sources, the body will gain weight.

This is exactly how real people work. I'm just describing all the parts independently. For you to assume I'm not doing that and have somehow forgotten about metabolic rates is entirely baseless.

If the vast majority of poor people fall in the group you're describing, then I was right all along.

If a significant portion of poor people, however, are caught in the metabolistc catch-22 Jocabia describes, then my assertion that "almost all" fat poor people can save money by buying less food doesn't fly.

You didn't say almost all. It wasn't even implied. You said you don't understand how fat people are fat, and claimed it was caused by overeating. No one, not even the writers of those studies would support such a claim.

I was repeatedly told that I didn't understand how thermodynamics worked, and that the human body wasn't as simple as calories in and calories out.

But it is, and it always was, and you agree with me.

It isn't as simple as that. It can't be addressed with just that simple equation because there is so much interdependence and so many factors. Meanwhile, you didn't account for calories that come from things other than eating. You never said all sources, and continually ignored other sources which is why we had to mention them.


But this assertion that my calories description didn't describe people is to what I was objecting. If total calories expended by the body for all purposes are exceeded by total calories absorbed by the body from all sources, the body will gain weight.

This is exactly how real people work. I'm just describing all the parts independently. For you to assume I'm not doing that and have somehow forgotten about metabolic rates is entirely baseless.

You weren't talking about all sources. You were talking about eating. And calories must be greater that calories out IS overly simplistic. It doesn't address the real mechanisms that must be addressed to make such a simplistic statement have any meaning whatsoever. What you said could only be true if tons of explanation and caveat was added to avoid misunderstanding. You didn't do such a thing which is why it was silly.

I didn't assume anything. I took your argument in context. You presented that argument to argue that overeating caused people to be fat. And even after everything you claimed that it's still true that overeating does cause it.

Meanwhile, the human body is STILL not a closed system.

But it's demonstrably true that fat people overeat. That's been what we're arguing about. Fat people consume more calories than they expend.

You're not actually disputing that. You're just misusing the word expend.

Just a page earlier, you demonstrate you were not considering all sources. You are still defending that fat people overeat, and you equate eating to the calorie inputs you're discussing. You can't make the above statement and the say I only assumed you were ignoring several other factors. You just stated again that you were ignoring them.

I was repeatedly told that I didn't understand how thermodynamics worked, and that the human body wasn't as simple as calories in and calories out.

But it is, and it always was, and you agree with me.

But this assertion that my calories description didn't describe people is to what I was objecting. If total calories expended by the body for all purposes are exceeded by total calories absorbed by the body from all sources, the body will gain weight.

This is exactly how real people work. I'm just describing all the parts independently. For you to assume I'm not doing that and have somehow forgotten about metabolic rates is entirely baseless.

Then your hands might need to get back in touch with your brain, because they seem to think your argument is "People get fat by consuming too many calories for their activity level".

I'd look into that, if I were you - it suggests that your hands think you're making a different argument to the one you claim.. or, of course, you got pwned and are desperately backpeddling. We'll go with the brain-hand thing, yes?

You didn't say almost all. It wasn't even implied. You said you don't understand how fat people are fat, and claimed it was caused by overeating. No one, not even the writers of those studies would support such a claim.
It all relates back to my initial assertion that "almost all" poor people can escape poverty. The means to escape poverty then went on to discuss the inefficiency with which the poor employ their available resources (like their food budget).

As such, we were discussing "almost all" of any subset of poor people.

It isn't as simple as that. It can't be addressed with just that simple equation because there is so much interdependence and so many factors. Meanwhile, you didn't account for calories that come from things other than eating. You never said all sources, and continually ignored other sources which is why we had to mention them.
I'll admit I had no idea any significant source of energy came to people by any means other than ingestion. But, thinking about this thread, the only other source I can recall being mentioned was sunlight.
You weren't talking about all sources. You were talking about eating. And calories must be greater that calories out IS overly simplistic.
It's still true. It's only overly simplistic if it has ceased to describe the world accurately. But it hasn't. Total calories in much not exceed total calories out if someone is to lose weight.
It doesn't address the real mechanisms
No it doesn't. Nor did it claim to.
What you said could only be true if tons of explanation and caveat was added to avoid misunderstanding.
This is where we appear to have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of language.
I didn't assume anything.
You thought I was ignoring metabolic rate. Since I didn't claim to be ignoring metabolic rate, you had to have assumed it.
I took your argument in context. You presented that argument to argue that overeating caused people to be fat. And even after everything You claimed that it's still true that overeating does cause it.
It does. Relative to calories expended, over-consumption of calories causes weight-gain. This is demonstrably true, and you've agreed with it repeatedly.
Meanwhile, the human body is STILL not a closed system.
The human body + all of the energy in and out of it is, however.

Then your hands might need to get back in touch with your brain, because they seem to think your argument is "People get fat by consuming too many calories for their activity level".
If you could explain to me how someone could gain weight while consuming fewer calories than he expends, we'd probably be done here.

But that hasn't happened, yet (and I don't think it's possible). The mass and energy used to make someone bigger has to come from somewhere.

I was repeatedly told that I didn't understand how thermodynamics worked, and that the human body wasn't as simple as calories in and calories out.

You were repeatedly told you were applying it wrong. You are engaging in a fallacy called equivocation. IF you changed your usage of the word from food calories to overall calories, you should have said so. However, even as recently as a page ago, you once again went back to only referring to food when you talking about the energy coming in. You are not, nor never have been, talking about all sources. Pretending otherwise after the fact is just a desperate attempt to save face.


But it is, and it always was, and you agree with me.

But this assertion that my calories description didn't describe people is to what I was objecting. If total calories expended by the body for all purposes are exceeded by total calories absorbed by the body from all sources, the body will gain weight.

This is exactly how real people work. I'm just describing all the parts independently. For you to assume I'm not doing that and have somehow forgotten about metabolic rates is entirely baseless.

You never said for all purposes or from all sources, which is what sparked the objection. It was repeatedly mentioned to you that you missing sources. If you'd been talking about all sources, you'd just have clarified. Instead you continued to defend your overeating bender. Meanwhile, again, a page ago, you said that if you are storing calories you are overeating. Just a page ago. Overeating doesn't address all sources, even if you weren't using the term overeating wrong.

You only recently started saying from all sources when I proved you wrong again. You don't get to keep changing your claim until you finally get it right and then claim that's what you meant all along. Especially not when you so recently referred to eating as the source data. I just quoted it back at you.

Seriously, dude, quit while you're WAY behind. Your usage of thermodynamics just got referred to by a physicist as cute. Show your understanding of the situation, and bow out while you've got an grace left.

The claim was actually that fat poor people could save money by eating less. That's been shown to be untrue.

Again, you conceded the first point.

But it's demonstrably true that fat people overeat. That's been what we're arguing about. Fat people consume more calories than they expend.

You're not actually disputing that. You're just misusing the word expend.

Then you point out that you were however right on the point you were trying to make all along.

That you FINALLY realized that you need to consider all sources in and all sources out, doesn't change what you were arguing before. Do you want me to quote earlier when I pointed out the effect of the Sun and of respiration. Deus, Grave and Snaft all laughed at you the first time. Perhaps we can entertain them again.

If you could explain to me how someone could gain weight while consuming fewer calories than he expends, we'd probably be done here.

But that hasn't happened, yet (and I don't think it's possible). The mass and energy used to make someone bigger has to come from somewhere.

You're killing me. That you finally hit on argument, a useless argument, but an argument that is almost correct, doesn't mean you were correct all along. This sad little effort is an attempt to save face. Quit selling. No one's buying.

It does. Relative to calories expended, over-consumption of calories causes weight-gain. This is demonstrably true, and you've agreed with it repeatedly.

Except that it has, again, been shown that even lowering calorie intake doesn't lead to less weight gain, and can often lead to more weight gain. The fact that you've failed repeatedly to understand this has led to several pages of back-and-forth on this very subject.

The human body + all of the energy in and out of it is, however.

One can't oversimplify a point so horribly and then claim it supports their views. Do you have any idea the shear amount of calories expended in radiative heat transfer by the body daily? Or how many calories are absorbed from an hour in the sun?

Except that it has, again, been shown that even lowering calorie intake doesn't lead to less weight gain, and can often lead to more weight gain. The fact that you've failed repeatedly to understand this has led to several pages of back-and-forth on this very subject.



One can't oversimplify a point so horribly and then claim it supports their views. Do you have any idea the shear amount of calories expended in radiative heat transfer by the body daily? Or how many calories are absorbed from an hour in the sun?

Well, to be fair, now that he's taking all energy in and all the energy out, so he is accounting for that. NOW. Of course, he's only been saying it like that for a page. Prior to that, he was only talking about eating. Now's he's correcting his statements long after the argument started and acting like "what are you guys arguing about? I was right. See, watch how I'm writing it now. Are you claiming that's wrong?"

You don't get to change your point to what we were telling you should have been your pont and then pretend like we never should have corrected you.

And even having finally gotten to where you seem to have some clue, Llewdor, it still has no application to the point. The whole thing is a sad diversion for your wildly wrong assertions that remain wildly wrong. This point doesn't support them. Doesn't make you look more credible. And, worse, demonstrates an incredible need to be appear to be right, rather than simply BE right.

How can option one be winning?

Option 1 can be winning for the same reason poverty is endemic in society -- there are a lot of ignorant, selfish bastards in the world.

It's been reminding me of the strict constructionism discussion, too, but I was hesitant to say so. You were spectacularly and persistently wrong in that one, too. Starting wrong and then aggressively pursuing wrongness -- even to the point of grave-digging old threads so you can continue being wrong in them -- seems to be your style, and you are quite good at it.

Don't you know that if you keep repeating it long enough; your opposition gets tired and moves on; then you can claim victory!

Jesus, seriously, how does a non-real world example that YOU'RE trying to make address poor people? It doesn't. You keep trying to make this not apply to the real world.

Other variables HAVE to be left to float because in real people they do. You can't control stress exactly, or metabolism, or types of nutrition from the back of that equation. They are all INPUT. All of them. To pretend as if the input and output are controlled completely seperately is not realistic. You're attempting to make an argument in the real world and it's wrong in the real world. Attempting to make it into a fake world so you can be right, doesn't change that in OUR world, the one most of us are content to live in, how much you consume is not the only factor in weight problems and your claim that it is the cause and the solution is provably false.
Oh, come on, Jocabia, everyone knows that arguments are much easier to win when you get to minutely tailor every detail of the subject and examples precisely to support your base assertion. It's only when you deal with messy reality that lovely, pure, unsullied theories fall apart.


How could you possibly claim to know what I meant if I didn't say it?

This is starting to remind me of the strict constructionism discussion.

<snip>
It's been reminding me of the strict constructionism discussion, too, but I was hesitant to say so. You were spectacularly and persistently wrong in that one, too. Starting wrong and then aggressively pursuing wrongness -- even to the point of grave-digging old threads so you can continue being wrong in them -- seems to be your style, and you are quite good at it.

But why can't you apply this to the population of the poor, which in itself is a big population. What is it about the poor which would change this primary cause?



http://www.nber.org/papers/w12954 here is a better source.
Personally, I think of it as "dollar menu syndrome." The foods that are generally low cost and readily available in many neighborhoods and food markets -- I'm talking about the US now -- are highly processed foods that contain low-cost food additives, like high fructose corn syrup (stay away from it, you'll live longer), modified fats, artificial flavorings and other substances. They also contain processed ingredients that, by processing, have lost much of their natural nutritional content (such as grains, fruit-based ingredients, pre-cooked meats, etc). In order to make these nutrient-poor foods palatable, they usually have their salt and fat or sugar content increased, to create a flavor base that will prompt an "eat-more" response.

This is true with all highly processed foods in markets, and especially true with fast-food restaurant fare. They are typically high in fat, high in salt, high in food additives, relatively low in nutrition, and relatively low in cost. Poor people with families to feed cannot afford $3-4/lb for enough fresh tomatoes to provide tomato servings to their family for a week, but they can afford discounted canned tomato sauce, which contain unhealthy additives, or discounted buckets of food from KFC, which has the added seeming value of creating a full feeling in people who are actually not getting full nutrition.

Now, you take all Americans, of all economic strata. The sendentary lifestyle will tend to make all Americans fat, regardless of what they eat. Even the wealthy who can afford to eat the best and most healthy foods will tend towards over-weight if they never move from day to day.

But when you add to the sedentary nature of our work and recreations, a poor man's diet of unhealthy foods, you end up with the bizarre reality of obese people who are malnourished, which is what we see in the US today, in increasing numbers.

Don't you know that if you keep repeating it long enough; your opposition gets tired and moves on; then you can claim victory!
Haha, I wouldn't know. I've never stuck around long enough to see the wrong person declare victory. ;)

You never said for all purposes or from all sources, which is what sparked the objection.
No, I just said calories in and calories out. That people jumped to the unreaaonable conclusion that I meant some calories rather than all calories isn't my fault.

It is really annoying, though.

Unless you think I explicitly excluded some calories - feel free to point that out if that's the case.
You only recently started saying from all sources when I proved you wrong again. You don't get to keep changing your claim until you finally get it right and then claim that's what you meant all along. Especially not when you so recently referred to eating as the source data. I just quoted it back at you.
Eating is a source. If the total sources are excessive, you can reduce that by cutting back on eating. Hence, fat people are overeating.

How hard is this?

Except that it has, again, been shown that even lowering calorie intake doesn't lead to less weight gain, and can often lead to more weight gain. The fact that you've failed repeatedly to understand this has led to several pages of back-and-forth on this very subject.
Again, just like Jocabia, you're ignoring the corresponding decrease in calorie output.

If I lower my calorie intake, all else being equal, that CANNOT lead to weight gain.

My point here has been that weight loss and weight gain are explainable through a really simple equation using only calories in and calories out. That those two values have a bunch of factors that influence them, and are themselves really difficult to calculate or manipulate independently ISN'T RELEVANT. The equation remains simple.
One can't oversimplify a point so horribly and then claim it supports their views. Do you have any idea the shear amount of calories expended in radiative heat transfer by the body daily? Or how many calories are absorbed from an hour in the sun?
No idea. But I don't have to, because I know that if calories in exceeds calories out weight gain will occur. It's an immutable principle.

Everyone's stopped objecting to this point (because it's right). I don't know why you're both so eager to refute me when I'm not saying anything controversial.

No, I just said calories in and calories out. That people jumped to the unreaaonable conclusion that I meant some calories rather than all calories isn't my fault.

It is really annoying, though.

Unless you think I explicitly excluded some calories - feel free to point that out if that's the case.

Um, yes, we are silly in that you used a term for measuring the amount of energy from food, and explicitly mentioned overeating. Yep, calories and overeating. How did anyone not jump to ALL calories from all sources. How dare we jump to the logical conclusion that when you're discussing overeating, you're talking about, you know, calories from food.

When you say the cause is overeating, that is EXPLICITLY excluding ALL other sources.

But it's demonstrably true that fat people overeat. That's been what we're arguing about. Fat people consume more calories than they expend.
You're not actually disputing that. You're just misusing the word expend.

Seriously, just admit defeat and stop being silly. Or does the word "overeat" not exclude all other sources? You said it's demonstrably true?



Eating is a source. If the total sources are excessive, you can reduce that by cutting back on eating. Hence, fat people are overeating.

How hard is this?

You didn't talk about total sources until recently. You talked about eating alone. That's it. You kept talking about overeating. You specifically and explicitly ignored other sources claiming that if you are storing energy then overeating is the only explanation. You repeated just a page ago. Seriously, does this squirming ever work or have you just decided to be extra entertaining in this thread?

Again, just like Jocabia, you're ignoring the corresponding decrease in calorie output.

If I lower my calorie intake, all else being equal, that CANNOT lead to weight gain.

My point here has been that weight loss and weight gain are explainable through a really simple equation using only calories in and calories out. That those two values have a bunch of factors that influence them, and are themselves really difficult to calculate or manipulate independently ISN'T RELEVANT. The equation remains simple.

When you say OVEREAT you are talking about too much input, specifically from food, being the cause, not too little output. You are specifically and explicitly claiming that they need to reduce their food intake to solve the problem, which is what overeating means. Stop squirming. It's funny, but we're not laughing with you.

Again, just like Jocabia, you're ignoring the corresponding decrease in calorie output.

If I lower my calorie intake, all else being equal, that CANNOT lead to weight gain.

My point here has been that weight loss and weight gain are explainable through a really simple equation using only calories in and calories out. That those two values have a bunch of factors that influence them, and are themselves really difficult to calculate or manipulate independently ISN'T RELEVANT. The equation remains simple.

No idea. But I don't have to, because I know that if calories in exceeds calories out weight gain will occur. It's an immutable principle.

Everyone's stopped objecting to this point (because it's right). I don't know why you're both so eager to refute me when I'm not saying anything controversial.

No, you're assuming a corresponding decrease in calorie output. The rest of your post is, as always, invalid. Oversimplifying to the point of absurdity doesn't really help things much, does it?

This is at least partly about food, and you've been arguing a fairly narrow point yourself. As you said:
The claim was that fat people overeat.
Unless you're using a defintion of "overeat" that doesn't relate to consuming more food than is necessary given other circumstances (it can't be a universal measure without that contextual aspect without ignoring folks with extreme requirements like cyclists), the claim is demonstrably correct, and your own remarks (and those of Deus and GnI) have conceded that.

Food accounts for calories in.

Calories in exceeds calories out in fat people.

Reducing calories in can cause weight loss.

Eating less reduces calories in.

You know, Lewis Carroll used to write logic problems more complicated than this.

When you say OVEREAT you are talking about too much input, specifically from food, being the cause, not too little output.
Since it's their relative values that matter, the two are equivalent.
You are specifically and explicitly claiming that they need to reduce their food intake to solve the problem, which is what overeating means.
Almost. I'm specifically and explicitly claiming that they can solve their problem by reducing food intake, as that would tip the calorie balance.

Your broader point has been that that wouldn't work in practice because the people are trapped in a metabolic catch-22, but the principle is still sound.

No, you're assuming a corresponding decrease in calorie output.
You might be assuming it (I can't imagine why); I'm holding output steady. That's what "all else being equal" does.

Again, just like Jocabia, you're ignoring the corresponding decrease in calorie output.

You might be assuming it (I can't imagine why); I'm holding output steady. That's what "all else being equal" does.

This was your own post. It would be nice if, every now and then, you avoided lying through your teeth. At least on a forum where we can go back and quote your old posts.

This is at least partly about food, and you've been arguing a fairly narrow point yourself. As you said:

Unless you're using a defintion of "overeat" that doesn't relate to consuming more food than is necessary given other circumstances (it can't be a universal measure without that contextual aspect without ignoring folks with extreme requirements like cyclists), the claim is demonstrably correct, and your own remarks (and those of Deus and GnI) have conceded that.

Food accounts for calories in.

Calories in exceeds calories out in fat people.

Reducing calories in can cause weight loss.

Eating less reduces calories in.

You know, Lewis Carroll used to write logic problems more complicated than this.

CAN isn't the same as DOES. Yes, Lewis Carroll could also write logic problems that weren't requiring us to be ignorant of the facts. (Notice I said COULD, not does. I've seen bits of Carroll logic that were correct. I'll let you know when you've met the same burden.)

What you're missing is that you can be fat, and not consuming enough food. You conceded this point right before making it again. Do you really need me to quote you admitting it?

Seriously, if this is the best you can do, it's time to just stop. I'm embarrassed FOR you.

<snip>

You know, Lewis Carroll used to write logic problems more complicated than this.
You must be an expert on Carroll. Your arguments make it seem almost as if you are channelling his spirit.

Llewdor, you have been wrong, you are wrong, and if you continue in this vein, I do not believe you will stop being wrong.

Regardless of your denials, you most certainly did state that if people are fat, that is a sign they cannot possibly be poor because the only way to get fat is to over-eat -- thus implying that they have money and are spending it and then complaining that they don't have it.

Jocabia and GnI have demonstrated the fundamental flaw in your basic premise. Eating more food is NOT the only way to get fat. It also results from eating foods that are more fattening than nutritious, and that such foods are more often sold cheaply and thus are more available to poor people than healthy foods. So obesity is not a cause of not having money, it is a result of not having money.

You have failed absolutely to address, let alone debunk their arguments. All you have done is repeat your initial point over and over and claim that it proves them wrong, which is bull. Over time -- time which would not have been spent if you had not dug this thread out of its natural grave -- you have been forced by the firmness and consistency of their arguments to minutely amend yours to be pointed slightly more towards reality than it was in the beginning. Yet you deny that you are doing this. Why? Why continue to argue against points you cannot defeat? Why bother to deny that they have debunked your argument and forced you to weaken it, when the record is there for all to read? Why embarrass yourself by claiming that people have conceded points that they most certainly have not conceded in an argument in which they are holding ground and you are losing it?

I have been following this thread for all the weeks you have been in it, and all I have seen is you promote an elitist, judgmental, classist world view, expressive of bigotry against the poor and supportive of a unequal social structure, and attempt to back it up with flawed arguments, false claims, and pointless gainsaying of all facts offered up in rebuttal.

I suggested that this topic be declared settled before, and I suggest it now again. Your argument has failed, and I do not see that there is anything more to be said about it.

Since it's their relative values that matter, the two are equivalent.

WHAT? Seriously, some of what you said was plainly stupid, but this is collossal. So your explanation is that when you said there's too much input, you actually might have meant there's too little output. Laughable.



Almost. I'm specifically and explicitly claiming that they can solve their problem by reducing food intake, as that would tip the calorie balance.

Your broader point has been that that wouldn't work in practice because the people are trapped in a metabolic catch-22, but the principle is still sound.

No, it wouldn't. You're explicitly wrong. You're assuming reducing the calorie input would not affect the output. Things don't work that way in the real world. When it doesn't work, it doesn't work. You can't say the principle that if I blow up a water balloon forever it will continue to expand because it's sort of true. The fact is it eventually explodes and you need to, you know, say something that's correct in reality AND in principle. This is neither.

This was your own post. It would be nice if, every now and then, you avoided lying through your teeth. At least on a forum where we can go back and quote your old posts.
Either you're assuming decreased output (and thus not holding all else equal), or you're trying to hold all else equal but forgetting about decreased output.

You're both making the same mistake, I think.

WHAT? Seriously, some of what you said was plainly stupid, but this is collossal. So your explanation is that when you said there's too much input, you actually might have meant there's too little output. Laughable.
No. When the person gains weight, the input exceeds the output. The two solutions to that are to increase the output or reduce the input. The two solutions have the same material effect in that they adjust the ratio in favour of weight loss. I've been discussing the former because it involves consuming fewer goods.
What you're missing is that you can be fat, and not consuming enough food. You conceded this point right before making it again. Do you really need me to quote you admitting it?
No, it wouldn't. You're explicitly wrong. You're assuming reducing the calorie input would not affect the output.
You've said this twice in rapid succession here, and you don't seem to be grasping that you're completetly missing the point.

I've been leaving out the interdependence of input and output because it's beyond the scope of this discussion. This discussion has been about whether input and output alone govern weight gain and weight loss. And they do.

Now I see why you all keep arguing - you're unable to divorce the discussion from how people really work in the real world and talk about it in the abstract.

Either you're assuming decreased output (and thus not holding all else equal), or you're trying to hold all else equal but forgetting about decreased output.

You're both making the same mistake, I think.

Um, you're making the mistake and squirming to boot. Just a moment ago, you were considering all inputs. Then it's food. Then it's all inputs. Then it's about decreased output. Then it's an admission that overeating isn't the problem. Then it is the problem.

Now, all you've got left is to make a completely useless statement devoid of merit or relevance to the topic, hoping upon hope, you'll finally be right for once.

And it would work, if you didn't keep trying to claim you were saying it all along against all evidence and the following logic.

You're the little kid with a hand on his head flailing away and his older brother. The older brother is trying to be nice, but honestly, it stopped being interesting or evidence of fortitude, oh, a few weeks ago. At this point, it's just evidence that the little kid doens't know when it's a hopeless effort to defeat someone that overmatches them by a long sight. You were never in the running for making a decent showing in this debate. At no point. And the more you flail about just trying to land any hit no matter how impotent those efforts are, you make it less and less interesting, or useful, or likely to have an relevance to any world, let alone the real world (sorry, I had to break the analogy, lest I cross the line).

Stop. Take a breath. Accept your loss like a man. And think about what you can do next time to actually make a good argument. This... this... just isn't worth ANYONE's time.

I have been following this thread for all the weeks you have been in it, and all I have seen is you promote an elitist, judgmental, classist world view, expressive of bigotry against the poor and supportive of a unequal social structure, and attempt to back it up with flawed arguments, false claims, and pointless gainsaying of all facts offered up in rebuttal.
You're projecting. I don't think anything I've said here has been elitist, classist, or supportive of an unequal class structure. Not in this thread, at least.

I've been talking about science.

No. When the person gains weight, the input exceeds the output. The two solutions to that are to increase the output or reduce the input. The two solutions have the same material effect in that they adjust the ratio in favour of weight loss. I've been discussing the former because it involves consuming fewer goods.

ONLY If you deny that the two are related. But they are. Meanwhile, you were NEVER considering all inputs and you kept saying. ONLY after a thorough drubbing to you start with this nonsense about how you were including all inputs even after admitting you were talking about overeating.



You've said this twice in rapid succession here, and you don't seem to be grasping that you're completetly missing the point.

I've been leaving out the interdependence of input and output because it's beyond the scope of this discussion. This discussion has been about whether input and output alone govern weight gain and weight loss. And they do.

Now I see why you all keep arguing - you're unable to divorce the discussion from how people really work in the real world and talk about it in the abstract.
No, it isn't. That's the problem. Your simply just attempting to not be wrong about everything. Sadly, you can't even do that right.

We keep arguing because guess where humans and their nutritional needs exist?

Despite that, you keep limiting it to eating, which suggests there are no other inputs, which is wildly and utterly false. Then when cornered, you pretend you didn't, despite still claiming that overEATing is the problem. That you simply refuse to recognize that you've lost EVERY point you've tried to make is just another in string of failures that mark your participation in this discussion.

You're projecting. I don't think anything I've said here has been elitist, classist, or supportive of an unequal class structure. Not in this thread, at least.

I've been talking about science.

Yes. The only problem is, you've been repeatedly misapplying the science, as has been shown to you.

OK, I vote that we take the above statement and allow it to stand as Llewdor having the last word in the argument.

This is certainly the most correct and honest thing he has said in the entire thread. It is true that we are unable to divorce ourselves from reality in discussing real world issues. Also, I appreciate the admission that, all along, nothing Llewdor has been saying has been based in reality. Let's just take this and run, before he changes his mind.

Yeah, but we knew that all along anyway.

<snip>

Now I see why you all keep arguing - you're unable to divorce the discussion from how people really work in the real world and talk about it in the abstract.
OK, I vote that we take the above statement and allow it to stand as Llewdor having the last word in the argument.

This is certainly the most correct and honest thing he has said in the entire thread. It is true that we are unable to divorce ourselves from reality in discussing real world issues. Also, I appreciate the admission that, all along, nothing Llewdor has been saying has been based in reality. Let's just take this and run, before he changes his mind.

You're projecting. I don't think anything I've said here has been elitist, classist, or supportive of an unequal class structure. Not in this thread, at least.

I've been talking about science.

Heh. And the newest bit of utterly dishonest behavior by our friend. Science, huh? What's scientific about claiming that if you're poor you shouldn't have children? What's scientific about the claim that if you're poor, your religious needs don't matter?

I'm truly wondering when enough wrong will be reason for you to stop resurrecting this thread every few days. I mean, it's hard to imagine you making the overall effect of your argument more provably false, but I guess I'll have to wait for your next post to see if I'll be wrong yet again in regards to your capacity for being incorrect, at best, and dishonest, at worst.

You're projecting. I don't think anything I've said here has been elitist, classist, or supportive of an unequal class structure. Not in this thread, at least.

I've been talking about science.
A) No, you have not been talking about science. Jocabia and GnI have been talking about science. You have been talking nonsense.

B) I already laid out the elitist and prejudicial content in your statements. Unlike Jocabia, I do not have enough patience with you to go digging through this hoary old thread for the proof that is already as much in front of you as it is in front of me, just so I can throw it in your face and have you deny its existence.

ONLY If you deny that the two are related.
I'm not denying they're related. I'm simply not discussing whether they're related because that's beside the point.
But they are.
I don't care. It's not relevant.
Meanwhile, you were NEVER considering all inputs and you kept saying. ONLY after a thorough drubbing to you start with this nonsense about how you were including all inputs even after admitting you were talking about overeating.
I'm happy to admit I didn't know about the other inputs. But the beauty of it is that doesn't affect my point. I'm still right about the relationship between inputs and outputs regarding weight gain and weight loss.
Despite that, you keep limiting it to eating, which suggests there are no other inputs, which is wildly and utterly false.
What's wildly and utterly false is that anything I say suggests anything I don't say. I'm feeling the need to reiterate my broad denial of implication.

Heh. And the newest bit of utterly dishonest behavior by our friend. Science, huh? What's scientific about claiming that if you're poor you shouldn't have children? What's scientific about the claim that if you're poor, your religious needs don't matter?

I'm truly wondering when enough wrong will be reason for you to stop resurrecting this thread every few days. I mean, it's hard to imagine you making the overall effect of your argument more provably false, but I guess I'll have to wait for your next post to see if I'll be wrong yet again in regards to your capacity for being incorrect, at best, and dishonest, at worst.
I haven't been dishonest. You've been drawing baseless conclusions about what it is I mean, and then you've been exhibiting a strong confirmation bias based on those conclusions.

As such, you cast everything I say in the worst possible light.

It is true that we are unable to divorce ourselves from reality in discussing real world issues.
That's a real problem. You should work on that.

My opinion has always been from seeing the poor that it is a result of the lack of choices they have. Lack of education and a lack of responsible people in their life, also. Everyone makes poor choices even the wealthy, but they do not lose their wealth. It's the best choice they have in the current situation, but it ends up being a bad choice because of the consequence in the future.

That's a real problem. You should work on that.

Well Llewdor? We kind of stopped sticking our fingers in our ears and singing "lalalalalala" a long time ago.

Well Llewdor? We kind of stopped sticking our fingers in our ears and singing "lalalalalala" a long time ago.

Reality tends to be important when discussing the real world. "I'm right about the solution to poverty if you just stop paying attention to how things work in the real world" kind of smacks of a complete waste of time. But, hey, that's me being all rational and stuff.

I'm not denying they're related. I'm simply not discussing whether they're related because that's beside the point.

I don't care. It's not relevant.

Says who? You? Two weeks later? Long after your point died along with several of my braincells from trying desperately to treat them like they could have any value at all.

Meanwhile, when discussing nutrition, it's utterly relevant. Unavoidably so. That you continue to claim it isn't, shows a difficulty in basic understanding.



I'm happy to admit I didn't know about the other inputs. But the beauty of it is that doesn't affect my point. I'm still right about the relationship between inputs and outputs regarding weight gain and weight loss.

What's wildly and utterly false is that anything I say suggests anything I don't say. I'm feeling the need to reiterate my broad denial of implication.

It does when you specifically talk about eating as if it's the only input and then when corrected continue to do so. You continued long after it was explained to you, including and up to a few pages ago. Now you want to change history and pretend like you said something different than you did. You didn't. Your history doesn't show it. I can and have shown when you've EXPLICTLY mentioned eating as the cause. Please, all these times before a week ago, quote where you said, "I'm trying to look at ALL Inputs here, not just eating." Scoot, you little nipper, and don't come back until you can make a point with a value.

It's threads like this that make me look forward to the revolution, so we can finally commit classicide on these whining libertarians.

Have we decided what to do with the lazy poor yet? Seriously...soylent green sounds really yummy...

Have we decided what to do with the lazy poor yet? Seriously...soylent green sounds really yummy...

We've decided that in the real world, Llewdor is wrong, but in a theoretical world, Llewdor is slightly less wrong. Unless you let him quote our argument back at us, and then suddenly he's right.

Reality tends to be important when discussing the real world. "I'm right about the solution to poverty if you just stop paying attention to how things work in the real world" kind of smacks of a complete waste of time. But, hey, that's me being all rational and stuff.
The real world discussion ended quite a while ago. Remember that bit about how we couldn't tell whether it was all or just some of poor people who had that metabolistic problem? That was the end of the real world discussion.

After that we were talking about thermodynamics, and you couldn't seem to decide which side you were on.

Says who? You? Two weeks later? Long after your point died along with several of my braincells from trying desperately to treat them like they could have any value at all.

Meanwhile, when discussing nutrition, it's utterly relevant. Unavoidably so. That you continue to claim it isn't, shows a difficulty in basic understanding.
We weren't discussion nutrition; we were discussing energy.
It does when you specifically talk about eating as if it's the only input
I was talking about eating. Eating in an input.

The "as if it's the only" part is entirely your invention.

The real world discussion ended quite a while ago. Remember that bit about how we couldn't tell whether it was all or just some of poor people who had that metabolistic problem? That was the end of the real world discussion.

After that we were talking about thermodynamics, and you couldn't seem to decide which side you were on.

Oh, it did. Can you tell me what post it ended with? I notice that when your points are wrong in the real world, you simply declare after the fact that you weren't talking about the real world. You'll notice that when you try to do so, each time you try, I tell you that since we're talking about people, we're always talking about the real world. Period. Your attempts to avoid actually addressing anything relevant is the issue here and it's sad.

Thermodynamics doesn't exist in the real world? We're talking about thermodynamics in relation to the human body, it's a part of nutrition.

We weren't discussion nutrition; we were discussing energy.

I was talking about eating. Eating in an input.

The "as if it's the only" part is entirely your invention.

Ah, so when you specifically and only mentioned EATING, you really meant all inputs.

Okay, I know there are people watching the thread. How many people read "eating" to mean "all inputs", raise your hand.

And energy, when relating to the human body is a part of the study of nutrition. You are once again, utterly wrong. At every turn, we've been discussing the human body. At every point.

Ah, so when you specifically and only mentioned EATING, you really meant all inputs.
No, I meant eating.

You seem to think that I either:

a) discussed eating because I was unaware of the other inputs
b) used the word eating really imprecisely and meant it to cover all imputs

And neither is the case. It's a false dichotomy. I discussed eating alone. When I was discussing eating, I wasn't discussing the other inputs. That's all.

Just because I don't specify where the other inputs fit in those remarks (they didn't), you chose a possible (but unlikely) meaning that made me look like an idiot, because apparently you rather do that than learn something.
And energy, when relating to the human body is a part of the study of nutrition.
Yes it is. And we were discussing the energy part of nutrition.

Are you doing this on purpose?

Oh, it did. Can you tell me what post it ended with? I notice that when your points are wrong in the real world, you simply declare after the fact that you weren't talking about the real world.
There. You just presupposed I was talking about the real world. There's literally nothing I could say to convince you I wasn't talking about the real world (because I was discussing inputs and outputs independently), because you've already made up your mind.

Look at what you're doing. Now, assume I wasn't talking about the real world. See? Nothing in your opinion changes because the evidence ALREADY supports that conclusion, but you've already ignored it.

You just presupposed I was talking about the real world.

Well, yes, that's typically how discussions go. it's assumed that someone making a point is actually discussing things "in the real world". because a discussion aobut how the poor can become rich by getting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow while not paying for food because they sustain themselves by magic pixie dust, is not really worthwhile or relevant.

If you are not talking about the real world, and are instead discussing irrelevant hypotheticals and conjecture in the fantastic realm of Llewdor where the young prince Alexander has to escape the evil clutches of the wizard Manannan and claim his rightful place on the throne of Daventry....what good is your input?

There. You just presupposed I was talking about the real world. There's literally nothing I could say to convince you I wasn't talking about the real world (because I was discussing inputs and outputs independently), because you've already made up your mind.

Look at what you're doing. Now, assume I wasn't talking about the real world. See? Nothing in your opinion changes because the evidence ALREADY supports that conclusion, but you've already ignored it.

Yes, I presupposed that in a discussion about whether poor people are poor by choice, I limited our discussion to the realm of REAL. I'm silly like that.

When you claimed AFTER the fact, that we were not talking about the real world, which is a nonsensical assumption, I rejected that claim AND refused to follow you into any abstract discussion. Everyone else reacted similarly. If you still think there is some possiblity that we're all discussing with you the merits of the Matrix, then you're not paying attention in a way that you should coinsder rather embarrassing.

No, I meant eating.

You seem to think that I either:

a) discussed eating because I was unaware of the other inputs
b) used the word eating really imprecisely and meant it to cover all imputs

Nope. Neither. I seem to think that when you refer to eating, you are talking about eating. You claimed you were talking about all inputs, but you kept stating eating. Since you've already admitted that number 2 is not the case, we'll dispatch with your pathetic claims that you WERE talking about all inputs when you said overeating. Good. You're wrong. In the real world. In the magical world of Ralph. Anywhere there is a law of thermodynamics, knowing about other inputs isn't enough. Addressing them is required. They aren't assumed to be fixed. They aren't assumed to be fluid. They are assumed to behave how they really work unless you ask that we assume otherwise and we accept. That didn't happen. You remain woefully and soundly defeated on every level.


And neither is the case. It's a false dichotomy. I discussed eating alone. When I was discussing eating, I wasn't discussing the other inputs. That's all.


Which is exactly what I said. You claimed all of the sudden you were talking about "all inputs" and that it wasn't valid to think you weren't just because you didn't say it. And then I noted that you often mentioned eating, which does not mean "all inputs". Now you admit you weren't discussing all inputs.

You require us to add information to your posts, to your benefit, and against all evidence. The idea is better than laughable

Have we decided what to do with the lazy poor yet? Seriously...soylent green sounds really yummy...

Feed them to Llewdor. If he is kept busy picking the bones of the poor out of his teeth, maybe this thread will finally be allowed to die.

There. You just presupposed I was talking about the real world. There's literally nothing I could say to convince you I wasn't talking about the real world (because I was discussing inputs and outputs independently), because you've already made up your mind.

Look at what you're doing. Now, assume I wasn't talking about the real world. See? Nothing in your opinion changes because the evidence ALREADY supports that conclusion, but you've already ignored it.

With this piece of bullshit, you are really close to earning a place on the ignore list. I never ignore posters because I always want to know what people are thinking even if they are trolls and jackasses. Even if I won't talk to someone, putting them on ignore just seems too, too disrepectful of another person. But you don't converse or debate. You just spin bullshit. You come into serious discussions and derail them with your nonsense and then you will not let them die. I am really finding it very hard to maintain any kind of respect for you at all. Please stop this now.

If you could explain to me how someone could gain weight while consuming fewer calories than he expends, we'd probably be done here.


Actually, it has happened, you just failed. To notice, I mean.

Just off the top of my head, one mechanism - not everything we consume has a meaningful calorific value... but it's probably all got weight. Water, for example, can be retained in tissue, whilst making absolutely no difference to the input-output of calories.

I could probably start looking at things like the erosion of muscle during heavy dieting, and how it is offset by the body resisting starvation by hoarding food stores... but I really don't need to - since my first blush response immediately solves the problem.

Buh bye now.

Personally, I think of it as "dollar menu syndrome." The foods that are generally low cost and readily available in many neighborhoods and food markets -- I'm talking about the US now -- are highly processed foods that contain low-cost food additives, like high fructose corn syrup (stay away from it, you'll live longer), modified fats, artificial flavorings and other substances. They also contain processed ingredients that, by processing, have lost much of their natural nutritional content (such as grains, fruit-based ingredients, pre-cooked meats, etc). In order to make these nutrient-poor foods palatable, they usually have their salt and fat or sugar content increased, to create a flavor base that will prompt an "eat-more" response.

This is true with all highly processed foods in markets, and especially true with fast-food restaurant fare. They are typically high in fat, high in salt, high in food additives, relatively low in nutrition, and relatively low in cost. Poor people with families to feed cannot afford $3-4/lb for enough fresh tomatoes to provide tomato servings to their family for a week, but they can afford discounted canned tomato sauce, which contain unhealthy additives, or discounted buckets of food from KFC, which has the added seeming value of creating a full feeling in people who are actually not getting full nutrition.

Now, you take all Americans, of all economic strata. The sendentary lifestyle will tend to make all Americans fat, regardless of what they eat. Even the wealthy who can afford to eat the best and most healthy foods will tend towards over-weight if they never move from day to day.

But when you add to the sedentary nature of our work and recreations, a poor man's diet of unhealthy foods, you end up with the bizarre reality of obese people who are malnourished, which is what we see in the US today, in increasing numbers.

Spot on - but, there's also the trend towards cooking (or otherwise denaturing) vegetables, which makes them useless to digestive processes except as movable bulk - completely removing their abilities as anti-oxidants, etc. to help cleanse the digestion. The classic example - as you mention - is tomatoes. Medicine for the disease if used right, part of the problem if you can't afford to use it right.

There's also (as I mentioned to that Llewdor (sp?) person) the synthetics in and around our food, that contaminate our food supply and are resistant to normal metabolism.

Both aspects (along with most of what you were talking about) can be 'treated' by drinking lots of water, avoiding processed food, eating a balanced diet, and making sure you get plenty of vegetation of different colours... and maybe combining that with just a moderate amount of exercise.

Eating is a source. If the total sources are excessive, you can reduce that by cutting back on eating. Hence, fat people are overeating.

How hard is this?

Very hard, apparently.

If you were getting enough from other sources, you could give up eating?

WHAT? Seriously, some of what you said was plainly stupid, but this is collossal. So your explanation is that when you said there's too much input, you actually might have meant there's too little output. Laughable.



Ah! It's so simple!

The poor aren't eating too much, they're not pooping enough!

We weren't discussion nutrition; we were discussing energy.


This could be your problem.

Energy isn't the whole equation. Ever. The human body is an engine, and no engine is efficient. Not even close.

Actually - that could be even more of a problem, since energy is actually even less relevent to this discussion than nutrition would be - what you started talking about was people being 'overweight' - which has only a passing connection to 'energy', but a whole hill of beans to do with 'mass'.

Spot on - but, there's also the trend towards cooking (or otherwise denaturing) vegetables, which makes them useless to digestive processes except as movable bulk - completely removing their abilities as anti-oxidants, etc. to help cleanse the digestion. The classic example - as you mention - is tomatoes. Medicine for the disease if used right, part of the problem if you can't afford to use it right.

There's also (as I mentioned to that Llewdor (sp?) person) the synthetics in and around our food, that contaminate our food supply and are resistant to normal metabolism.

Both aspects (along with most of what you were talking about) can be 'treated' by drinking lots of water, avoiding processed food, eating a balanced diet, and making sure you get plenty of vegetation of different colours... and maybe combining that with just a moderate amount of exercise.

To be fair, it depends on precisely how the veggies are cooked. If you're steaming them, American or British style (and how you can eat such tasteless soppy masses of plant matter I'll never understand) this is likely true. But generally cooking them in a very small amount of oil allows you to retain much of the nutritional value of the vegetables, because you're not draining them nearly as much, and because most of the drain-off is being eaten anyway.

/2cents

To be fair, it depends on precisely how the veggies are cooked. If you're steaming them, American or British style (and how you can eat such tasteless soppy masses of plant matter I'll never understand) this is likely true. But generally cooking them in a very small amount of oil allows you to retain much of the nutritional value of the vegetables, because you're not draining them nearly as much, and because most of the drain-off is being eaten anyway.

/2cents
Holy crap I hope so.

My partner and I are extremely fond of our version of stir fry, which really means that we use Pam to make sure stuff doesn't stick to the pan and then we throw in any veggies and/or meats we have in the fridge. The resulting yummies are dumped over rice and devoured. If it turns out that we're destroying the nutritive value of our veggies by treating them in this way, then I'll feel like a total dope.

Holy crap I hope so.

My partner and I are extremely fond of our version of stir fry, which really means that we use Pam to make sure stuff doesn't stick to the pan and then we throw in any veggies and/or meats we have in the fridge. The resulting yummies are dumped over rice and devoured. If it turns out that we're destroying the nutritive value of our veggies by treating them in this way, then I'll feel like a total dope.

We do pretty much the same thing, except replacing Pam with extra virgin olive oil, and replacing the rice with rotis. And a lentil soup instead of meats (for protein). Given that my ancestors have done pretty much the same thing down the centuries, I think we're good. :D

Incidentally, if you don't already do this I'd recommend using brown rice instead of white. It's healthier and (IMHO) tastier.

We do pretty much the same thing, except replacing Pam with extra virgin olive oil, and replacing the rice with rotis. And a lentil soup instead of meats (for protein). Given that my ancestors have done pretty much the same thing down the centuries, I think we're good. :D

Incidentally, if you don't already do this I'd recommend using brown rice instead of white. It's healthier and (IMHO) tastier.

brown rice also has a more interesting texture. *nod*

Holy crap I hope so.

My partner and I are extremely fond of our version of stir fry, which really means that we use Pam to make sure stuff doesn't stick to the pan and then we throw in any veggies and/or meats we have in the fridge. The resulting yummies are dumped over rice and devoured. If it turns out that we're destroying the nutritive value of our veggies by treating them in this way, then I'll feel like a total dope.

I never use any added fats but olive oil and butter. I go through the olive oil pretty quickly, but I think I buy 2 pounds of butter a year. Maybe. At most. If that. (Actually, I'm not sure. I recently bought a pound of butter, but I don't remember how long it had been since I'd bought the pound before that.)

And the key to cooking vegetables is to maintain texture and bright, clean color. Most vegetables are most nutritious eaten raw, but there are a few, such as carrots, that some nutritionists say should be lightly cooked to facilitate getting the nutrients out of them most efficiently (I think it's a pre-digestion kind of theory).

EDIT: Of course, we can do this because we're not poor. The average prices on vegetables skyrocketed in the past 6 years, according to a finance news report I heard a few months ago. I often wonder what would happen to the economy if McDonald's (the world's largest single food buyer) went vegan.

I never use any added fats but olive oil and butter. I go through the olive oil pretty quickly, but I think I buy 2 pounds of butter a year. Maybe. At most. If that.

And the key to cooking vegetables is to maintain texture and bright, clean color. Most vegetables are most nutritious eaten raw, but there are a few, such as carrots, that some nutritionists say should be lightly cooked to facilitate getting the nutrients out of them most efficiently (I think it's a pre-digestion kind of theory).
Okay, whew, it sounds like we're okay then. We mostly just cook things enough to make them a little tender and to warm them up, but we both like a lot of crunch left in our veggies.

Incidentally, if you don't already do this I'd recommend using brown rice instead of white. It's healthier and (IMHO) tastier.
We generally alternate between white and brown rice. My partner doesn't like brown rice as much, but he also doesn't hate it, so we take turns picking the rice for the day.

I'm a total fiend for wild rice, too, and one of my guilty pleasures is a wild rice soup that tastes far too good to be remotely healthy.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc. I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.

The only real exception I can think of are the disabled who were not disabled as a result of their own recklessness (like diving into the shallow end). I would guesstimate that these account only for less than 40% of the poor.

I really get tired of hearing about how much I need to care for the poor. I KNOW the poor, and with the exception of the disabled they are all there as a result of their own decisions.

Don't get me wrong; I am all for folks finding their way out of poverty, but when that poverty is a result of their choices the first thing that needs to improve is not their poverty - it is the thing which has led them into it; their habit of making poor choices.

Drug and alcohol recovery services are good - too bad there aren't more. I think that work habits should be taught also - maybe as an extension of unemployment benefits. Single mothers have it rough - too bad there isn't a class somewhere on how to pick/be a responsible mate (for both genders). Best they can hope for is family/network of support.

All of these things are situations best not gotten into - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Consequences can often suck, but what would life be without them?
I think you have a false opinion about poor people.Not all of them are drug or alcohol addicts.And not ONLY them,since mostly rich people are.But if you had to choose between a 4 or 5 membered family (because you love children and you want a personal basketball team-kidding) and a not poor in funds life with no children,how could you tell what is the right or wrong choice?What is most important?And how can you even make wrong choices when you may even not have the opportynity to make a choice-see Ghetos?In my opinion it's more social determinism that makes your life and less your choices.

I think you have a false opinion about poor people.Not all of them are drug or alcohol addicts.And not ONLY them,since mostly rich people are.But if you had to choose between a 4 or 5 membered family (because you love children and you want a personal basketball team-kidding) and a not poor in funds life with no children,how could you tell what is the right or wrong choice?What is most important?And how can you even make wrong choices when you may even not have the opportynity to make a choice-see Ghetos?In my opinion it's more social determinism that makes your life and less your choices.

Well alot of people have already destroyed this guys reasoning, including me numerous times.
I think this thread is about finished.

Yes, I presupposed that in a discussion about whether poor people are poor by choice, I limited our discussion to the realm of REAL. I'm silly like that.
Tangents exist.
Nope. Neither. I seem to think that when you refer to eating, you are talking about eating. You claimed you were talking about all inputs, but you kept stating eating. Since you've already admitted that number 2 is not the case, we'll dispatch with your pathetic claims that you WERE talking about all inputs when you said overeating. Good. You're wrong. In the real world. In the magical world of Ralph. Anywhere there is a law of thermodynamics, knowing about other inputs isn't enough. Addressing them is required. They aren't assumed to be fixed. They aren't assumed to be fluid. They are assumed to behave how they really work unless you ask that we assume otherwise and we accept. That didn't happen. You remain woefully and soundly defeated on every level.
They shouldn't be assumed at all without that assumption being stated.

This is our problem - you not only keep making assumptions, but you expect me to be making different assumptions (when I'm not making assumptions at all).
Which is exactly what I said. You claimed all of the sudden you were talking about "all inputs" and that it wasn't valid to think you weren't just because you didn't say it. And then I noted that you often mentioned eating, which does not mean "all inputs". Now you admit you weren't discussing all inputs.

You require us to add information to your posts, to your benefit, and against all evidence. The idea is better than laughable
Ideally, I'd like to you to add nothing at all to my posts. You've been adding throughout the thread, and look where it got us.
With this piece of bullshit, you are really close to earning a place on the ignore list. I never ignore posters because I always want to know what people are thinking even if they are trolls and jackasses. Even if I won't talk to someone, putting them on ignore just seems too, too disrepectful of another person. But you don't converse or debate. You just spin bullshit. You come into serious discussions and derail them with your nonsense and then you will not let them die. I am really finding it very hard to maintain any kind of respect for you at all. Please stop this now.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't understand why you do.

All of this back and forth has been my attempt to respond to the assertion that I didn't understand thermodynamics, an assertion that wasn't based on anything I said, but distaste for the way I said it.
Just off the top of my head, one mechanism - not everything we consume has a meaningful calorific value... but it's probably all got weight. Water, for example, can be retained in tissue, whilst making absolutely no difference to the input-output of calories.
Thank you for finally making the retaining water argument. Now I can drop this line of inquiry.
This could be your problem.

Energy isn't the whole equation. Ever. The human body is an engine, and no engine is efficient. Not even close.

Actually - that could be even more of a problem, since energy is actually even less relevent to this discussion than nutrition would be - what you started talking about was people being 'overweight' - which has only a passing connection to 'energy', but a whole hill of beans to do with 'mass'.
Which is why this entire side discussion has been so confusing for people. It's been about energy.

Never have I been discussing nutrition. I did miss the massive water problem, though.

However, on the issue of the body consuming muscle mass for energy: that energy was consumed as food, it just wasn't consumed recently.

Well alot of people have already destroyed this guys reasoning, including me numerous times.
I think this thread is about finished.

I'm surprised to actually see it still going this long. Ding Dong Mystic is dead.

Tangents exist.

They shouldn't be assumed at all without that assumption being stated.

Yeah, using context is a poor assumption. Why are you talking about the process of becoming a state? (In other words, if we're not supposed to use context for meaning, then this conversation would be quite silly, indeed. You'd still be wrong, however.)


This is our problem - you not only keep making assumptions, but you expect me to be making different assumptions (when I'm not making assumptions at all).

Um, no. I expect you to state your assumptions when the context of the conversation suggest the opposite. This is not "our" problem. This is YOUR problem. No one here is stupid enough to be fooled by your squirming. You got squashed. And now you want to save your pride. Frankly, you're really just sticking your pride out there and getting squashed again. You don't look any less silly now than you have all conversation. And your just as obviously full of crap.




Ideally, I'd like to you to add nothing at all to my posts. You've been adding throughout the thread, and look where it got us.

I didn't add context to your post. The basic rules of reading comprehension and English did. You act like reading eating to mean, you know, eating is a crazy to think.

Meanwhile, you're begging me to add things to your posts that weren't there. You want me to accept you were not talking about the real world, something you didn't say until you've already gotten crushed. Seriously, how does acting a fool after you've been defeated save face?


I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't understand why you do.

All of this back and forth has been my attempt to respond to the assertion that I didn't understand thermodynamics, an assertion that wasn't based on anything I said, but distaste for the way I said it.

Thank you for finally making the retaining water argument. Now I can drop this line of inquiry.

Which is why this entire side discussion has been so confusing for people. It's been about energy.

Never have I been discussing nutrition. I did miss the massive water problem, though.

However, on the issue of the body consuming muscle mass for energy: that energy was consumed as food, it just wasn't consumed recently.

All the rest of this more of the same. I'd keep pointing out the utter nonsense of these statements, but honestly I have enough faith in anyone that will see them that they're smart enough to recognize when someone is just trying to save face. This is pathetic.

This side discussion hasn't been confusing for anyone. Everyone here recognizes how sound this drubbing has been. Everyone here recognizes that you're trying to alter your meaning after the fact in a desperate hope that you won't be so utterly wrong. Even you understand or you wouldn't be trying to change the meaning now and posting more frequently than the entire rest of the thread in that attempt.

Come on, man. I'm sure you've got some more things we can blame you being wrong. It's my fault. It's the fault of context. It's the fault of water. It's the fault of interdependent variables. You haven't blamed ghosts yet. There were ghosts in the machine. I saw this movie once...

However, on the issue of the body consuming muscle mass for energy: that energy was consumed as food, it just wasn't consumed recently.

And, while it may make some difference to your weight, it's actually damaging to your metabolism overall, and does nothing to reduce your fat.

Thus - you could be overweight, obese even - and morbidly 'fatty'... whilst losing weight (because you are losing muscle) - and your health would actually be getting WORSE as you lost weight, not better.

Or, if you were drinking plenty of water - but NOT taking the precautions necessary to 'clean the machine', you could end up storing water in your depleted system. You'd be burning muscle mass, gaining fat mas, and actually gaining weight overall.

Like I said from the very beginning - it is not as simple as equating 'overweight' to 'eat-too-much'.

Okay, whew, it sounds like we're okay then. We mostly just cook things enough to make them a little tender and to warm them up, but we both like a lot of crunch left in our veggies.

Steaming is supposed to be best, and light roasting and stir-frying are not substantially more damaging, overall. The eral bad techniques are boiling (which sucks all the 'goodness' out, and deposits it in the part you throw away), and microwaving - today's answer to accidentally eating something healthy - which destroys almost all the worthwhile value of vegetables.

Of course, for a lot of things (again, I'm back on the tomatoes), NO cooking is even better. I guess, ideally, you'd have some steamed or stir-fried veggies for the goodness they DO retain, and for the yumminess... and you'd have some fruity-and-veggie type uncooked foods, also - for maximum healthiness impact.

Steaming is supposed to be best, and light roasting and stir-frying are not substantially more damaging, overall. The eral bad techniques are boiling (which sucks all the 'goodness' out, and deposits it in the part you throw away), and microwaving - today's answer to accidentally eating something healthy - which destroys almost all the worthwhile value of vegetables.

Of course, for a lot of things (again, I'm back on the tomatoes), NO cooking is even better. I guess, ideally, you'd have some steamed or stir-fried veggies for the goodness they DO retain, and for the yumminess... and you'd have some fruity-and-veggie type uncooked foods, also - for maximum healthiness impact.

Really? I'd always assumed (incorrectly I guess) that foods like subs were less healthy because of the fact that the veggies you were eating were uncooked.

Works for me. I have a weird dislike for cooked tomatoes and cooked fruits. Something about the texture is yucky to me.

But I love them fresh and raw. (like i like my women...hyuk hyuk)

Sun-dried tomatoes are delicious in a good penne vodka, though.

Of course, for a lot of things (again, I'm back on the tomatoes), NO cooking is even better. I guess, ideally, you'd have some steamed or stir-fried veggies for the goodness they DO retain, and for the yumminess... and you'd have some fruity-and-veggie type uncooked foods, also - for maximum healthiness impact.
Works for me. I have a weird dislike for cooked tomatoes and cooked fruits. Something about the texture is yucky to me.

But I love them fresh and raw. (like i like my women...hyuk hyuk)