If a person only has McDonald’s at their avail, then they have no choice but to eat at McDonald’s, correct? If you present the person with another option and he refuses it, fine. You can be as judgmental as you want. But you can’t be judgmental about choices he is unable to make.
I grew up right across from a Mom and Pop store. I guess we were lucky because it had a produce section, but the bins were frequently full of spoiling, misshapen, fly-blown food. But the junk food aisle was always pristine and well-stocked. We had options–this much is true. But it’s insane to insist those options cost the same or that our purchasing decisions in that store were predictive of our behavior in a totally different one.
You have got to be kidding. I just said that a real grocery store is better than a mom and pop store selling brown bananas. But you apparently refuse to listen. I’m tired of this debate tactic.
Also, please provide data that says McDonald’s is the only food option for many Americans.
Try again. Quite obviously, you know nothing about conservatives.
We don’t say that we know better. What we do say is make your own choices but take responsibility for your actions. That’s why The War On Big Gulps is so asinine. Let people drink all the Big Gulps and eat all the sugar, etc., that they want. But they shouldn’t expect society to take care of them when they pork up to 400 pounds and have heart problems and diabetes. Actions have consequences.
So your story about the woman eating junk at a mini mart after a double shift was never posted?
You’ve made it very clear that you refuse to judge anyone’s food choices or the government’s response to them. (Unless, of course, the government wants to restrict paying for cookies.)
Except that fat, Big-Gulping republicans do expect to be taken care of. That’s the pathetic irony of all this. Because 99% of those “I’m a grown-up boy and can make my own choices and accept the consequences” people will sure as hell take advantage of whatever cheap/free/subsidized options there are out there, principles be damned.
There are places in the United States where access to healthy food is problematic. I work on one such area in Little Rock. If you want to go to a grocery store you need a car. Otherwise you’ve got a few fast food places, liquor stores, one outrageously expensive corner grocer and some gas station convenience stores. If you don’t have an automobile you’re out of luck.
Not necessarily, some poor women do day laborer work (landscaping, cleaning debris or brush, etc.) if they can get it. It pays better, but it’s hard, physical labor that will easily absorb the energy of a 1200 callorie meal.
This is a very good point. My neighborhood has grocery stores within walking and bicycling distance. I rarely shop at them unless it’s picking up one or two items fast because while they have plenty of fresh and cheap vegetables, fruit, etc. their selections is mostly tailored to Mexican Americans. Good, healthy tortillas are fresh made in the store, but not rye bread. I hope they are doing some research into what the local people might actually want to eat.
It’s worth pointing out that the big gulp ban was proposed by a republican mayor, and that Jon Stewart, who is much of a spokesman for the generally liberal opinion as there is, devoted an entire segment of his show to mocking it mercilessly.
I agree that there are some parallels between banning big gulps and actual policies that actual liberals actual support, but they’re only parallels, it is in NO way a liberal policy.
I’m a liberal who thinks that policies like big gulp bans or trans fat bans or Super Size bans are insanely stupid, if you’re looking for more data points.
Programs like the one mentioned in the OP sound like they might be worth trying, although if they’ve already been tried and found not to be effective, then it’s time to try something else instead.
Farmer, I didn’t say anything about “urban” anything or urban people not having any choices. If you can’t remember what I have said, please keep my name out of your posts.
Do poor people have very many choices? No, they don’t, and I don’t see how you can sit there and say otherwise. On my way to walking to work, I get to a stretch of town where the closet grocery store is two miles away. That isn’t far if you have a car, but if you get around on foot and bus pass, it’s a chore. But there is a 7-11. It’s my go-to spot if I should find myself in need of water if it’s hot.
What options do they offer? To their credit, they do have some meager fruit options available. You can get a banana for sixty cents and a cupful of grapes for $2.00. Together, about that’s 150 calories, some fiber, and some vitamins for $2.60 (excluding tax).
You know how much a honey bun costs? A dollar. You know how many calories a honey bun provides? Not 150. Not 300. But 450. And it will make you feel full and satisfied. A banana and a handful of grapes? Not so much.
If you’ve got a dollar to buy lunch with, the right choice is NOT clear. You don’t have a plethora of options, all costing the same. Some options are definitely more cost-effective than others.
Twisting my words will not make it easier for you to debate with me.
I’d call myself a conservative. Yet I would be all for a trans fat ban or limit. This assumes two things. Trans fat is actually bad as some claim. And that substitutes are only marginally more expensive. Kinda like requiring iodine in salt or certain vitamins in bread. In these cases the cost to the consumer are almost invisible but the benefits to them and society can be quite substantial.
As for the overall issue, I don’t have much to say about the actual example under discussion, but I think the generic philosophical issue is an interesting one worth talking about.
And yes, one part of the general liberal mindset is to see problems in society, and to try to come up with ways that government can help solve those problems. Frequently that involves spending tax money. And, liberals being as susceptible to stupidity, short-sightedness and/or corruption as any other people, these solutions are undoubtedly sometimes terrible ideas, and sometimes purely schemes to line the pockets of rich liberal donors. But I certainly believe that the general “use governmental power and money to make society better” idea is one that has proven itself to be incredibly beneficial over the course of US history.
A few other comments concerning various things that have been brought up so far this thread:
(1) The point of stimulus money, as I understand it, is to be spent on things, and thus get “out there” and get the wheels of the economy turning again. Therefore, a program like this is a perfectly appropriate use of stimulus money… as are most things other than “extremely corrupt politician just pockets it and walks away”.
(2) A bit of rhetoric that pops up frequently in discussions like this is “liberals think they know what’s best for you”. Which is kind of meaningless. Everyone thinks they know what’s best for you. Conservatives think that learning English and not having pre-marital sex is best for you, liberals think that eating organic produce and not consuming nuclear power is best for you. Or whatever. The question is what they do with that opinion. When liberalism is at its best, I think what it does with that opinion is set things up to discourage something without banning it, or encourage something without requiring it. Cigarette taxes and warning labels are a good example of that… and the proposal under discussion in this thread aspires to that goal as well. Now, my natural snarkiness compels me to point out that there are some cases where conservatives think they know what’s best for you (don’t smoke pot, don’t get gay married) where they are clearly the ones supporting laws restricting rights… But overall, I don’t so much think that liberals come out better on the “think they know what’s best for you” competition as I just think it’s a meaningless and fairly ill-defined thing to say in the first place, particularly when it’s presented as this smug encapsulation of the entire concept of liberalism.
(3) Speaking purely for myself, I don’t think the government should be in the business of banning big gulps, but I think that taxing big gulps is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (I mean, I’m not saying it SHOULD be done, but I’m saying that it certainly COULD be done without setting off any warning bells for me). I also think it’s far more reasonable for the government to put restrictions on what business can or can not do than on what individuals can or can not do. When evaluating a proposed law that limits what individuals can/can not do, you both have to convince me that your law will make society better, AND that it does not violate individual rights. When evaluating a proposed law that limits what businesses can or can not do, only one of those requirements must be met. (OK, it’s a bit more complicated than that, if anyone wants to really get into the precise details…)
Nah, conservatives don’t tell people how to live their lives. They don’t try to legislate who may marry whom. They don’t try to tell women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. They would never suggest you can’t use marijuana in your own home. I could go on.
The truth is some conservatives spend a large part of their lives telling others what they can and can’t do. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.
