What are you trying to imply, that they should but wont, that they shouldn't but will, some other combination?
Girru00
joined 2 years ago
LOL, PCOS hirsutism has available pharmacological and non- pharmacological treatments. What is your point here?
Granted. Anything you even slightly attempt, whether you make the smallest twitch to punch someone - say a very rude child, or jokingly twitch your steering wheel towards a ramp, will be completed in full. Did you make an attempt to be more objective and logical? Congratulations on your completely new personality. There is 0 time to reconsider or adjust your actions, that are completed instantaneously.
Nice share, thank you
Just because people can consume pure lard, and gain a tonne of weight, it doesnt mean theyre not malnutritioned. It also doesnt mean they dont experience hunger.
If you take a step back and consider the primary question that needs to be answered is it
a) What weight is a measure of hunger/poverty - people must be over x weight irrespective if health and were good. b) What food availability us a measure of hunger/poverty - people must have reasonable acess to a basic set of nutritional inputs and were good.
You seem to be following a - people are fat, so hunger doesnt exist
When it would be equally truthful, with a different conclusion to say - people are feeling hunger and experiencing malnutrition. When they can eat, what they can afford causes increased body mass without fulfilling their nutritional requirements. They also continue to feel hungry.
Treat food similar to medicine, the good benefit is the target, but there are also side effects. Cheaper food has a worse profile - fewer (not none) benefits, and higher side-effects.
Theres also more complexity to this - poverty isnt just $. Education, transportation, time, exhaustion, health. Many intersections and impacts that paint a persons life.
If only there was some way to confirm, short of only reading the headline, if theres more to this.
Oh, apparently theres further text in the article, for example 29% said their financial situation is precarious. 11% say they regularly dont eat enough, so they have enough food for their kids, 24% say theyre very concerned with coping with the increase in food prices. Oh and 12%, within the past 6 months, have skipped meals while hungry.
So the article sources survey data, you're basing your claims on better primary data I take it? Or maybe secondary public health database datasets? Something else?
LOL, America did what now? Invented English? Met an English fella the other day, born and raised in New York.
You cant calculate net positive based on actuals, but also include opportunity cost, and regardless, simple utilitarianism is morally reprehensible imho. Someone invents the cure for all cancers, and only commits the occasional rape or murder. Net positive? Hero/villain?
Maybe youre not aware of what that means. Orphan crushing machine is relative to a situation and what at first what sounds like a heartwarming action, until you question why that action was needed in the first place.
No focus on the good samaritan(s) here, rather it is sad that in this world you need a saviour to keep a foodbank afloat, and deeper, sadder still that foodbanks are needed in the first place.
The orphan crushing machine - the heartless system. The criticism is on society having holes for people to fall through.
The classic orphan crushing machine story is about that 6 year old that worked through summer to pay off his classmates lunch debt. The good samaritan, loved young boy. The orphan crushing machine, the school system that would cut off lunches for low income students that couldnt pay off their debt.
Co er cion
Edit: holy shit thanks for gold kind stranger! Much fedora tippings to you
Wut? Is this a reddit copy bot?
The what now?