New trend in romances

[Kelliezgirl]

Finally, someone who has at least studied basic economics instead of constantly trying to find moral justifications for hyperwealth.

This effect gets magnified in real, modern systems because of economies of scale. The guy who happens to winning now is just going to keep winning, even if he performs sub-optimally on an individual basis, since he’s basically operating with a massive efficiency gain from the get-go.

People seem to act like it’s normal for the top 1% of society to get wealthier while everyone else has gotten stagnant. It’s bizarre as hell to me that anyone would pretend like they “deserve” it, because the equally valid conclusion is that everyone else doesn’t deserve it.

It’s like, they want to believe in a just world, but only for rich people. When I point out that the opposite must hold true, that the impoverished must thus deserve their poverty, there’s a tide of hemming and hawing. Because it’s suddenly harder to accept that the retired teacher struggling to get by as a Walmart greeter and the starving boy whose only healthy meal is a school lunch are deserving of their misery.

That’s silly. There is no just world, it’s just an amoral, indifferent universe and the equally amoral, indifferent systems our species has chosen for itself. Genocide was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Slavery was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Treating women as chattel was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Why would we think our current system will remain forever acceptable?

The "starving boy"?
You realize that the biggest health problem in America for the poor is obesity?
The capitalist system that created those icky billionaires also lifted more people out of poverty than any system in human history.
A poor American lives better than 99.9% of the people who ever lived on this planet and have a better quality of life.

 

[Yarglenurp]

The "starving boy"?
You realize that the biggest health problem in America for the poor is obesity?
The capitalist system that created those icky billionaires also lifted more people out of poverty than any system in human history.
A poor American lives better than 99.9% of the people who ever lived on this planet and have a better quality of life.

…
I don’t think I understand… are you suggesting that there are no starving children in the US? Because local food pantries would beg to differ. Shit, just go to an elementary school in a poor neighborhood. Ask the teachers if they think their kids are being given a real fair shot at life.

It is quite common for childhood hunger and childhood obesity to coexist, even in the same community. They both stem from the same core issue… lack of access to nutritious food stemming from poverty and neglect.

Look, I’m not trying to say that Americans have it worse, but like… your “poor American lives better than…” argument is really not compelling. A large part of human history includes period of plague and extremely genocidal wars. Well, sure… we’re all doing better than a peasant from 1500s England because we’re not literally shitting ourselves to death after burying our sixth newborn. I personally don’t see anything to be gained from this type of comparison.

 

[MillieDynamite]

If one is born into poverty, getting out of that situation isn't luck. It happens as a result of hard work. Careful planning can be used to advance. I'm saying many of the ultra-rich are where they are because of good planning, hard work, and willingness to do whatever it takes to get what they want. Some of whatever it takes may or may not be ethical or moral. Ethics and morality aren't the same things. I have no desire to be wealthy. I want to be comfortable. I don't have to be ultra-rich for that. Along with that, I'm not willing to do whatever it takes (especially unethical or immoral things) to get rich or even comfortable.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

…
I don’t think I understand… are you suggesting that there are no starving children in the US? Because local food pantries would beg to differ. Shit, just go to an elementary school in a poor neighborhood. Ask the teachers if they think their kids are being given a real fair shot at life.

It is quite common for childhood hunger and childhood obesity to coexist, even in the same community. They both stem from the same core issue… lack of access to nutritious food stemming from poverty and neglect.

Look, I’m not trying to say that Americans have it worse, but like… your “poor American lives better than…” argument is really not compelling. A large part of human history includes period of plague and extremely genocidal wars. Well, sure… we’re all doing better than a peasant from 1500s England because we’re not literally shitting ourselves to death after burying our sixth newborn. I personally don’t see anything to be gained from this type of comparison.

I'm absolutely saying that the number of people actually in danger of starving in the United States is so incredibly small as to be meaningless.
Anyone arguing otherwise has never seriously looked at the problem. And no "asking an elementary teacher" doesn't constitute actually understanding the issues.
For example, if you qualify for SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, previously "food stamps") your elementary age child also qualifies for FREE breakfast AND lunch at school. And, oh by the way, the SNAP benefits assume you are buying your kids 3 meals a day, even though they are getting 2 for free.
If your kids have nutritional problems it's shitty parenting, not poverty and that has nothing to do with billionaires.

Anyway, that's an issue for the politics board...so that's all I've got to say on that.

 

[alohadave]

You can argue "connections from a rich family" but that ignores all the kids from rich families that fail.

One of the big differentiators is a willingness to take risks.
People don't become billionaires working for someone else. They have to take risks, start their own business knowing that a very high percentage of those businesses fail.
One of the reasons that America produces so many of the ultra wealthy is because we have both a culture that is very forgiving of bankruptcy and laws that don't make it punitive. But you still have to be willing to risk being bankrupt if you ever want to be truly wealthy.
There are millions of smart hardworking people out there that aren't willing to go all in and risk that.

Rich people have advantages that other people do not. They are more likely to succeed. Their success is not guaranteed. An advantage is not assurance of success, it improves the starting position.

A person who has rich family backing their ventures is more likely to succeed and to be able to try again if they do fail.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I'm absolutely saying that the number of people actually in danger of starving in the United States is so incredibly small as to be meaningless.

LOL.

I’m sure your opinions are of great comfort to those hungry children.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Rich people have advantages that other people do not. They are more likely to succeed. Their success is not guaranteed. An advantage is not assurance of success, it improves the starting position.

A person who has rich family backing their ventures is more likely to succeed and to be able to try again if they do fail.

Intelligence more strongly correlates to economic success than family wealth.
You have a better chance as a smart kid with poor parents than an average kid with rich parents.

That ought to tell you something.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

LOL.

I’m sure your opinions are of great comfort to those hungry children.

And I'm sure blaming billionaires will put imaginary food in the stomachs of the imaginary starving children.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I don’t think I understand…

Kelliez is just taking a contradictory stance to either sound smarter than you or to pick a fight, or both. Don't bother.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, if you go by the groups who are taking donations to feed the underprivileged in the USA, 1 in 5 children do not receive enough food on a daily basis. If you take the government figures, that number shrinks considerably. And the government doesn't say who does or doesn't go to bed hungry each night. They use the term food secure, which is an odd term.



Now, while the percentage of people who are starving is too large, no matter how small, when compared to the full population, the numbers are low. They aren't addressing that people are going to bed hungry (Like Feed the Children is); they are saying they are in danger of losing the security of having enough food. The thing is, you can't trust most charities to do what they say they are doing. Not when between 50 and 75% of the money they raise goes into fund raising. The government has programs in place to feed people who are below the poverty line.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Kelliez is just taking a contradictory stance to either sound smarter than you or to pick a fight, or both. Don't bother.

And this ladies and gentlemen is what happens to someone who constantly stereotypes anything that deviates from their narrow world view. They become incapable of understanding any view point that deviates from their own.
Keep an open mind, or it could happen to you!

 

[alohadave]

I'm absolutely saying that the number of people actually in danger of starving in the United States is so incredibly small as to be meaningless.

https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america

Hunger facts​

44​

million people in the United States are food insecure

13​

million children in the United States are food insecure

49​

million people turned to food programs in 2022

100%​

of U.S. counties have food insecurity

https://frac.org/hunger-poverty-america

Hunger Quick Facts for 2022​

• Overall: One in 8 households (12.8 percent) experienced food insecurity, or lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet. An estimated 44.2 million Americans lived in these households.
• One in 20 (5.1 percent) households in the U.S. experienced very low food security, a more severe form of food insecurity, where households report regularly skipping meals or reducing intake because they could not afford more food.
• Children: Over 1 in 6 households with children (17.3 percent) experienced food insecurity, an increase of 40 percent compared to 2021.
• Race and ethnicity: Black (22.4 percent) and Latinx (20.8 percent) households are disproportionately impacted by food insecurity, with food insecurity rates more than double double the rate of White non-Latinx households (9.3 percent).
• Rural: Households in rural areas experienced deeper struggles with hunger compared to those in metro areas (cities + suburbs). In 2022, 14.7 percent of households in rural areas experienced food insecurity compared to 12.5 percent of households in metro areas.
• Geography: The food insecurity rate is highest in the South (14.5 percent), followed by the Midwest (12.4 percent), the Northeast (11.6 percent), and the West (11.2 percent).
• The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably by state, ranging from 6.2 percent in New Hampshire to 16.6 percent in Arkansas (for the three-year period of 2020-2022).

And I'm sure blaming billionaires will put imaginary food in the stomachs of the imaginary starving children.

Pretending that there isn't a problem isn't putting food in their bellies either.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Well, if you go by the groups who are taking donations to feed the underprivileged in the USA, 1 in 5 children do not receive enough food on a daily basis. If you take the government figures, that number shrinks considerably. And the government doesn't say who does or doesn't go to bed hungry each night. They use the term food secure, which is an odd term.

View attachment 2380321

Now, while the percentage of people who are starving is too large, no matter how small, when compared to the full population, the numbers are low. They aren't addressing that people are going to bed hungry (Like Feed the Children is); they are saying they are in danger of losing the security of having enough food. The thing is, you can't trust most charities to do what they say they are doing. Not when between 50 and 75% of the money they raise goes into fund raising. The government has programs in place to feed people who are below the poverty line.

We use terms like "food secure" because no one is actually starving.
You won't find a single case of a starving or malnourished child that isn't the result of neglect, not poverty.
So we create a vague definition we can change at any time.
People persist in the claims of starvation because it's a tear jerker.

 

[Yarglenurp]

And I'm sure blaming billionaires will put imaginary food in the stomachs of the imaginary starving children.

Up until this point, I assumed you were arguing in good faith. I can see that this was a false assumption on my part. To everyone else, I apologize.

As for you, go fuck a corkscrew, troll filth.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america



https://frac.org/hunger-poverty-america



Pretending that there isn't a problem isn't putting food in their bellies either.

Food insecure doesn't mean starving.
Words have meanings.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Up until this point, I assumed you were arguing in good faith. I can see that this was a false assumption on my part. To everyone else, I apologize.

As for you, go fuck a corkscrew, troll filth.

So having been prove wrong you resort to personal attacks.
Stay classy!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

And this ladies and gentlemen is what happens to someone who constantly stereotypes anything that deviates from their narrow world view. They become incapable of understanding any view point that deviates from their own.
Keep an open mind, or it could happen to you!

You don't know who you are talking to here. At the risk of my anonymity, I will say that I work in the community and I have worked directly with hunger for a number of years. Having seen it up close and personal, the faces of the poor (working or not) I can say with absolute certainly that when you say this:

I'm absolutely saying that the number of people actually in danger of starving in the United States is so incredibly small as to be meaningless.

You are talking straight out of your ass.

I would ask if you had any idea just how many kids in North America have a roof over their heads because a food bank and/or a school meal program allows their parents to pay the rent with the savings on the grocery bill, but obviously you haven't the slightest clue.

You haven't the slightest clue of what you are talking about. Be careful when pulling your 'facts' straight out of foul air. You never know when someone might be listening. Like I said before, I am vividly familiar with your MO. You are not interested in the argument, just in arguing. So at this point, I strongly advise you for the sake of your own pride and embarrassment to step off because you have no clue who you are talking to.

Thanks for completely derailing yet another thread btw.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america



https://frac.org/hunger-poverty-america



Pretending that there isn't a problem isn't putting food in their bellies either.

From the USDA. Knowing what words mean is kind of important, especially in this crowd...

Food Security​

• High food security (old label = Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.
• Marginal food security (old label = Food security): one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity​

• Low food security (old label = Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
• Very low food security (old label = Food insecurity with hunger): reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

 

[alohadave]

Food insecure doesn't mean starving.
Words have meanings.

The ultimate way to avoid any kind of discussion.

This is how you sound: "Your words can mean anything and I don't choose to accept the meanings that you are using, so your argument is invalid and mine is the right one."

Enjoy defending billionaires. I'm sure they don't care about you at all.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

We use terms like "food secure" because no one is actually starving.
You won't find a single case of a starving or malnourished child that isn't the result of neglect, not poverty.
So we create a vague definition we can change at any time.
People persist in the claims of starvation because it's a tear jerker.

On behalf of the thousands of families that I have helped give free groceries to over a three year span I give you a collective, "fuck you".

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The ultimate way to avoid any kind of discussion.

This is how you sound: "Your words can mean anything and I don't choose to accept the meanings that you are using, so your argument is invalid and mine is the right one."

Enjoy defending billionaires. I'm sure they don't care about you at all.

Give me a precise definition of "food insecure".
It doesn't mean the same thing as "starvation" or "starving".
I made a plain, clear statement about starvation.
You responded with statistics about something that, while related, means something different.

If someone says, "no one died in the accident."
And your response is "That's not true, 20 people were injured."
Well, words have meanings...

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Give me a precise definition of "food insecure".
It doesn't mean the same thing as "starvation" or "starving".
I made a plain, clear statement about starvation.
You responded with statistics about something that, while related, means something different.

If someone says, "no one died in the accident."
And your response is "That's not true, 20 people were injured."
Well, words have meanings...

I'll repost here since you asked nicely...

Again, from the UUSDA:

Food Security​

• High food security (old label = Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.
• Marginal food security (old label = Food security): one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity​

• Low food security (old label = Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
• Very low food security (old label = Food insecurity with hunger): reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

 

[Yarglenurp]

On behalf of the thousands of families that I have helped give free groceries to over a three year span I give you a collective, "fuck you".

I find I disagree with you on many things, but I am 100% in agreement with you on this one.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'll repost here since you asked nicely...

Again, from the UUSDA:

Food Security​

• High food security (old label = Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.
• Marginal food security (old label = Food security): one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity​

• Low food security (old label = Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
• Very low food security (old label = Food insecurity with hunger): reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

Thank you, and I'll note that none of those definitions approach the definition of starvation, per Cambridge:
dying because of not having enough food.

 

[SimonDoom]

A debate over poverty in America belongs in the politics forum. Circling back to the point of the thread, it IS true, whatever one's own views are, thT there's been a rising tide of dissatisfaction with aspects of the US economic system, and that may turnn some off of billionaires as romantic ideals.