Whoops. Well, you can see how I would be legitimately confused.
A question that is perfectly reasonable to discuss, but is probably requires expertise in a variety of topics far beyond the scope of an SDMB thread. Is it good enough if I say “if enough studies have been done that it has been conclusively proven to be pointless, then liberals wanting to do it anyhow is in fact kinda dumb… but given that the entire concept of food deserts is one that has only been discussed fairly recently, I see no reason to think that that point has been reached”?
Or, to be snarky about it, “more than the number of studies that have been done showing that abstinence-only-education doesn’t work”.
Is it really part of the conservative philosophy to be devoid of hope, and are they suppose to fight against a positive vision forward because they believe other people are way too stupid to see a more sensible way to go?
Maybe it is possible that the processed food industry can make changes that benefit people’s health and set aside a priority on profits. Maybe nutritional information could start in early education along with alternative healthier food choices, ideally at low cost. Maybe all this is a dream that seems foolish, but how is it better to decide that nothing will ever improve so as to give up on trying?
One thing I’ll say is that it depends on the ethnic background of the poor people. My wife and I regularly visit the local Fiesta groceries, which are aimed at low-income Mexican-Americans and immigrants from Mexico, because they routinely have the cheapest and highest quality fresh produce of any grocery stores in the area.
That being said, there’s no shortage of fresh produce at any of the local Krogers, Wal-Marts or Tom-Thumbs (Safeway). And yet, you routinely see the poor black people that live in the area nearest me buying total crap to eat. You don’t see the hispanic people buying that stuff.
It’s an educational issue and a cultural one, not one of availability. The availability of low-cost, high quality produce in the supermarkets frequented by low-income Mexicans would tend to kill the idea that poor people don’t eat vegetables.
I have multiple studies that says this won’t work.
You have earnest and sincere hope.
That makes you a liberal. Your intentions are good. But when the numbers say one thing and your ideology says another, you choose to believe the ideology over the studies.
And then you wander over to a global warming thread and shake your head at those foolish conservatives.
kind of like abstinence only policy for conservatives, except for conservatives its a fundamental tenet where this example toward liberals is a random little effort that has liberal leanings but is in no way a representation of fundamental liberal views? Unless we can say it’s: We should make it easier for people to eat healthy, which I would agree with. A lot of liberalism can be reacted to this way: “No duh.”
Do you feel like this kind of thing is helpful in arguments? I mean, I don’t really feel like people railing on about evil douchebag conservatives is helpful, either. But you seem like a generally reasonable person, so it seems odd to me to see you pull out nonsense like this, or like your OP, “liberals mean well, and want to make things better, but their ideas are too often more idealistic than practical.”
That is a nonsensical reason to be a conservative. The opposite of that statement is “Conservatives don’t mean well and don’t want to make things better.” Or maybe you just meant to draw the contrast between liberals, who have impractical ideas, and conservatives, who have practical ones. But what are these practical ideas intended to do? Make things better? Do the conservatives mean well when they propose these practical ideas that will make things better? If so, how is that a contrast with what you say liberals are like?
And generally speaking, how is it helpful to set up this divisive stance? What do you hope to accomplish by saying these things?
I don’t think I am earnest or have sincere hope. When I was younger I was an idealistic person. Now I consider myself pragmatic to a fault.
But even as I’ve aged in this way, I still like ideas more than idle complaints and finger-pointing. We all agree that poverty-related obesity is a problem in our society. Do we waste time complaining and judging, not doing anything? Or do we brainstorm, throw out some ideas, and see what sticks and what doesn’t?
After some thought, I don’t think pragmaticism is the opposite of idealism. Pragmatists can recognize good ideas from bad ideas and aren’t afraid to try something new. They just like to move in a measured, thoughtful fashion. Cynics, however, are different. They start off believing something will not work and then set out to prove it. We’d still be a British colony if cynics ran this
country. Do you really want to portray conservatism as anti-idealistic?
Where are you seeing that? The link I gave didn’t say when the study was done. Of course, you haven’t given any links yet.
But let’s say there was some data in England from 2003. So what? This program is an active effort to influence shopping habits by modifying the items carried at stores across the city, not a passive study of what happened when one grocery store was set up in a city.
Anyway, like I said earlier, the info given so far does nothing to say that the matter is fully understood and further investigation is fruitless. You’ve made a very poor case for that. And you haven’t address the mistake you made in the OP of conflating the banning of substances with the idea of expanding access to substances.
I suppose I get tired of seeing a constant litany here of how evil Republicans are. And it’s great for you to tell ME it’s unhelpful, but why don’t you say that to the people who are doing it?
I can’t really carry off the persona, as evidenced by my quick admission when asked about abstinence-only sex ed that conservatives do the same things, and for essentially the same reasons: they want to make things better but succumb to ideology over fact.
Nothing I have said here is anything I don’t believe. I have simply not (until asked) volunteered it’s a problem on both sides.
Why am I supposed to always be reasonable and fair, and slog through threads calling me a partisan bigot day after day?
Nobody’s making you slog through threads that make you angry or upset. And the answer to why you are supposed to always be reasonable and fair is because the alternative is being unreasonable and unfair, and if you are like that, you are someone not worth talking to. There are many people on the SDMB like that. When I see someone that I consider to be a reasonable person saying something ridiculous, I generally do tell them so. Some people I have given up on, however.
At best you’ve found some information that may, maybe show that the pilot plan is misguided. But as has been argued in this thread, the issue is more complex that you’re painting.
Yet you still sit back and huff about how unfair all this is to you. Republicans aren’t being unfairly maligned. They have been acting like a bunch of stupid children for the last few years and people aren’t being evil to note it.
Conservatives’ flaw is not idealism, not in the way I contend liberals suffer it. Conservatives try to force morality upon people they believe will, absent their force, act immorally. That’s not what I’d call idealism.
Conservative idealism is manifested in their indefatigable faith in the free market to right all wrongs, in their naive confidence in business to do the right thing in the absence of regulations, and in tax cuts that are appropriate without regard to the economy,
OK, then what is the flaw that conservatives have and why is that better than idealism? I don’t wan to put words in your mouth, but from your description it sounds like the flaw is forcing their morality on others. That sounds worse than idealism to me. But I’ll let you explain it.
Because you’re the one presenting ideas that are against what the majority here thinks. And because you willingly align yourself with the more bigoted party. And because you’ve started using “liberal” as a swear word, just like everyone else in your party.
You admitted that Republicans are just as idealistic in certain areas. And yet you are still maintaining your thesis that being an idealist means you are a liberal. You claim you admit to being proven wrong, and yet you still cling to your ideals. How in the world are we not supposed to think that you are being partisan?
In some ways, being a reasonable person who occasionally becomes partisan is actually more offensive than someone who is partisan all the time. We can just ignore the partisan hacks. But you are a reasonable person. Yet you made this discussion, which shouldn’t be political at all, into a thread for saying how great conservatism is.
This thread should be about whether this was a good idea. I bet you’d actually be surprised to find out that a lot of liberals don’t think it is, if you didn’t poison the well and make it about being on the correct political team.