Anyone else happy about the drought?

• sleeper

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1243743 wrote:Yet sleeper owns a mcdonalds, just another way he's a contradiction. People are too fat and costing us money, yet i'm going to provide them an outlet to be fat so i can make money, then complain that the fat people who buy my product are costing me money, even though I'm part of the problem. You're a hypocrite and an idiot.
  
  cue response - "trolling is an art form and i'm sparking debate whether i agree with this or not...blah blah blah....if you support fat people you're a nazi"

  I love making money.
• WebFire

  sleeper;1243689 wrote:Who's says there will be shortages? I said prices will increase.

  Your are correct. But my answer is the same. No.
• sleeper

  

  WebFire;1243847 wrote:Your are correct. But my answer is the same. No.

  So you are overweight. Gotcha.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1243836 wrote:It's a combination of both. Cheap food allows them to eat more but free healthcare allows them to live longer than they should.

  The abundance of a resource never justifies the abuse of that resources. If they are gluttons, it's not the fault of an abundant supply. They should show some restraint and not eat junk, even if junk is available.
  
  An abundance of food provides the farmers options, and the potential exists that it can be given to those who cannot afford food WITHOUT government force. Charity, in other words, which is necessary for compassion to exist in a fair society.
  

  sleeper;1243836 wrote: A lot of the health problems they have occur after they've already had kids.

  True, but those which occur prior still occur at a higher rate than those occurring in fit people. My guess would be that it's a substantial difference.
  

  sleeper;1243836 wrote:To your fourth point, sure fat people are on the bottom of the dating scale, but you forget that their are both fat men and fat women. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together and come up with a fat baby.

  Of course there are, but that gets countered by my 3rd point. Some obese people will still have a standard for what they want in a mate that will include an aesthetically beautiful figure, but these people are less likely to find a person who fits their standard AND is attracted to them back, all because of societal standards of beauty. So while you'll obviously end up with bumping chubbies, I'm betting it would be at a lower rate than fit couples.
• WebFire

  sleeper;1243876 wrote:So you are overweight. Gotcha.

  I am overweight, and apparently have been, even when playing HS football and lean as shit. I will never weigh 165 lbs.
  
  But even if I weighed 130 lbs, my answer would be no. A drought will not make people eat healthier. You knew the answer when you posted the question.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1243880 wrote:The abundance of a resource never justifies the abuse of that resources. If they are gluttons, it's not the fault of an abundant supply. They should show some restraint and not eat junk, even if junk is available.

  Who said anything about it being justified? Price changes behavior. Do you think people drive less when the price of oil increases? Absolutely. Do you think people will eat less when the price of food increases? Absolutely. Your logic is broken at best and ignorant at worst.
• sleeper

  

  WebFire;1243883 wrote:I am overweight, and apparently have been, even when playing HS football and lean as shit. I will never weigh 165 lbs.
  
  But even if I weighed 130 lbs, my answer would be no. A drought will not make people eat healthier. You knew the answer when you posted the question.

  I'm curious which high school allows women to play football. Were you a kicker?
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1243890 wrote:Who said anything about it being justified? Price changes behavior. Do you think people drive less when the price of oil increases? Absolutely. Do you think people will eat less when the price of food increases? Absolutely. Your logic is broken at best and ignorant at worst.

  You act as though it's an involuntary function. If the price of food is the problem, then obese people are simply victims of their environment.
  
  People will eat less when food increased. I'm not arguing against that, which leads me to believe that you're missing my point. My point is that if they are eating in moderation when food is expensive, it's their responsibility to eat in moderation when there is plenty.
  
  Moreover, when food is cheap, there is even less justification for eating junk as opposed to healthy food.
  
  I'm not saying people don't eat more when food is cheaper. I'm saying they shouldn't, and that if they do so, the blame for the obesity is on them, not the abundance of food. That's all. Price shouldn't be the only thing that changes behavior, and if it is, the person who independently chooses to change his behavior because of price alone should be completely and exclusively responsible for all repercussions of changing his behavior rather than having the food intentionally rationed via either scarcity or price by someone else to "force" him to follow better health practices.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  sleeper;1243843 wrote:I love making money.

  You enable them, you're the cause, you're just complaining about yourself.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1243899 wrote:You act as though it's an involuntary function. If the price of food is the problem, then obese people are simply victims of their environment.
  
  People will eat less when food increased. I'm not arguing against that, which leads me to believe that you're missing my point. My point is that if they are eating in moderation when food is expensive, it's their responsibility to eat in moderation when there is plenty.
  
  Moreover, when food is cheap, there is even less justification for eating junk as opposed to healthy food.
  
  I'm not saying people don't eat more when food is cheaper. I'm saying they shouldn't, and that if they do so, the blame for the obesity is on them, not the abundance of food. That's all. Price shouldn't be the only thing that changes behavior, and if it is, the person who independently chooses to change his behavior because of price alone should be completely and exclusively responsible for all repercussions of changing his behavior rather than having the food intentionally rationed via either scarcity or price by someone else to "force" him to follow better health practices.

  O-trap, when you are dealing with the poor, fat, and stupid, price is the only thing that can and will change behavior.
• sleeper

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1243902 wrote:You enable them, you're the cause, you're just complaining about yourself.

  If I didn't own it, someone else would. It's easy money, and easy money is what I enjoy.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  sleeper;1243908 wrote:If I didn't own it, someone else would. It's easy money, and easy money is what I enjoy.

  ok hypocrite, just keep complaining about a problem you directly add to with stupid logic "well if i don't someone else will"
• sleeper

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1243911 wrote:ok hypocrite, just keep complaining about a problem you directly add to with stupid logic "well if i don't someone else will"

  If being hypocritical means owning an investment that pays a substantial ROI, then so be it. I'd rather be rich and a hypocrite, then work at UPS the rest of my life.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1243907 wrote:O-trap, when you are dealing with the poor, fat, and stupid, price is the only thing that can and will change behavior.

  "Will" might be correct in most cases, but "can" is not true. Someone's mental faculties would need to be beneath even the ability to be living on their own to not be able to have some discipline in how they eat. I can choose to eat a cheeseburger or to refrain from eating the cheeseburger. So can anyone else. Similarly, I can choose to eat a bowl of steamed broccoli with oil, salt, and garlic (a surprisingly cheap meal), or I can choose to refrain from doing so. So can anyone else.
  
  I'm not ready to acquit someone of the responsibility for their weight and subsequent health just because the food is cheap.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1243921 wrote:"Will" might be correct in most cases, but "can" is not true. Someone's mental faculties would need to be beneath even the ability to be living on their own to not be able to have some discipline in how they eat. I can choose to eat a cheeseburger or to refrain from eating the cheeseburger. So can anyone else. Similarly, I can choose to eat a bowl of steamed broccoli with oil, salt, and garlic (a surprisingly cheap meal), or I can choose to refrain from doing so. So can anyone else.
  
  I'm not ready to acquit someone of the responsibility for their weight and subsequent health just because the food is cheap.

  Let's put it this way. Worthless, lazy, POS fat slob #1 earns $10,000 a year. He normally spends all $10,000 eating cheeseburgers because the government pays for everything else he needs and he won't get off his ass. The price of cheeseburgers pre-drought is $1 a cheeseburger at 2,000 calories per burger. He eats 1 a day and that's all he eats. Drought comes, price of cheeseburger increases to $2, and fat lazy slob POS #1 can now only afford 1 half cheeseburger per day at 1,000 calories. Fat lazy slob POS #1 will now be forced to either A)earn more income to maintain being a fat lazy slob POS, or B) eat less cheeseburgers and lose weight. We can throw A out the window since lazy fat POS #1 is too stupid to get another job, so we default to B.
  
  Is it the math you are having trouble with or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
• sleeper

  

  Under this assumption, there are 10,000 days per year.
• LJ

  

  
• WebFire

  sleeper;1243892 wrote:I'm curious which high school allows women to play football. Were you a kicker?

  That was very lame. Is this the best you got these days?
• sleeper

  

  WebFire;1243953 wrote:That was very lame. Is this the best you got these days?

  I'm sorry, maybe a punter?
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1243929 wrote:Let's put it this way. Worthless, lazy, POS fat slob #1 earns $10,000 a year. He normally spends all $10,000 eating cheeseburgers because the government pays for everything else he needs and he won't get off his ass. The price of cheeseburgers pre-drought is $1 a cheeseburger at 2,000 calories per burger. He eats 1 a day and that's all he eats. Drought comes, price of cheeseburger increases to $2, and fat lazy slob POS #1 can now only afford 1 half cheeseburger per day at 1,000 calories. Fat lazy slob POS #1 will now be forced to either A)earn more income to maintain being a fat lazy slob POS, or B) eat less cheeseburgers and lose weight. We can throw A out the window since lazy fat POS #1 is too stupid to get another job, so we default to B.
  
  Is it the math you are having trouble with or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

  Apparently, what I'm having a hard time with is explaining my point in terms you can grasp. I'll try again.
  
  Though a quick caveat: Before asking if math is someone's problem, you should probably make sure yours is in order, so you don't have to add a post changing the number of days in a year to avoid a basic arithmetic error in your prior post.
  
  Also, under the current circumstances, you can still sit on your butt all day and make more than $1 per day. Hell, panhandlers make more than that in a month for sitting behind a sign, not to mention the government assistance.
  
  But let's keep with the $10,000 number. For the quantity of food consumed, the person could buy a week's worth of carrots or broccoli for that price. Hell, even buying boxes of macaroni and cheese would probably be healthier (not sure), but I know it'd be more filling ... and possibly cheaper, depending on the brand you buy.
  
  The cheeseburger is within their budget, but so are other, more healthy things. As such, it is still their responsibility to eat healthy food, no matter what the price of food is. I'm not saying they will. I'm saying it's their responsibility ... not the responsibility of mother nature, or anyone else ... to make sure they eat healthy foods.
• sleeper

  

  It's called a hypothetical OTRAP. What do they call the logical fallacy of bringing up metrics outside of the hypothetical to suit your argument?
• sleeper

  

  I agree that it is their responsibility to eat healthy. They make bad choices and don't follow this. Price is the easiest way to force the type of behavior that you desire.
• Heretic

  

  O-Trap;1243985 wrote:Apparently, what I'm having a hard time with is explaining my point in terms you can grasp. I'll try again.

  Have you tried using a combination of pictures and small words typed with big letters?
• WebFire

  sleeper;1243955 wrote:I'm sorry, maybe a punter?

  Still lame and very un-sleeper like. I expect more from you.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  sleeper;1243929 wrote:Let's put it this way. Worthless, lazy, POS fat slob #1 earns $10,000 a year. He normally spends all $10,000 eating cheeseburgers because the government pays for everything else he needs and he won't get off his ass. The price of cheeseburgers pre-drought is $1 a cheeseburger at 2,000 calories per burger. He eats 1 a day and that's all he eats. Drought comes, price of cheeseburger increases to $2, and fat lazy slob POS #1 can now only afford 1 half cheeseburger per day at 1,000 calories. Fat lazy slob POS #1 will now be forced to either A)earn more income to maintain being a fat lazy slob POS, or B) eat less cheeseburgers and lose weight. We can throw A out the window since lazy fat POS #1 is too stupid to get another job, so we default to B.
  
  Is it the math you are having trouble with or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

  Sell the McDonalds. You can't complain about fat people when you're a direct cause of someone being fat.