nmg: Yes. I also know how to get you to come out and state that your examples don't correspond to typical poor people.
So you ascribe something to me I didn't say, then try to paint my correcting you on that point as a concession.
Whether or not residing in motels or being homeless is "typical" depends on what level of poverty we're talking about, and where the people in question live. Poverty itself, is not "typical" of Americans in that the majority of Americans are not living below the poverty line. That does not mean it isn't a serious problem.
paft: If you rely heavily on raw foods, your chances of contracting e-coli definitely goes up. nmg: Sure. And if you rely heavily on driving to get to work your chance of dying in an auto accident definitely go up.
Your analogy as written makes no sense. Merely driving to work or going for walks is not considered a health hazard. Relying a great deal on raw vegetables is, and (She says patiently for about the third time. Hey, maybe this time it will take.) not merely because they can be infected with e-coli. Uncooked cruciform vegetables can cause gastro-intestinal and thyroid problems, no matter how carefully they've been washed.
It would make more sense to compare relying on raw vegetables because you can't afford to cook them to driving to work in a car that has worn brake pads and steering problems because you can't afford to pay for the repair work. It would make more sense to compare relying on raw vegetables to walking through high crime neighborhoods because you can't afford to live anywhere else.
And your last analogy is downright nonsense. Are you seriously comparing poor people having to eat unhealthy diets to someone deliberately importing moles into their own back yard?
nmg: But then again, if every time you're eating raw vegetables it's in place of eating fast food, I'd say your chances are going down.
Not if you're relying on raw vegetables to the extent that the poor often have to rely on fast food.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 23/11/13 20:40 (UTC)So you ascribe something to me I didn't say, then try to paint my correcting you on that point as a concession.
Whether or not residing in motels or being homeless is "typical" depends on what level of poverty we're talking about, and where the people in question live. Poverty itself, is not "typical" of Americans in that the majority of Americans are not living below the poverty line. That does not mean it isn't a serious problem.
paft: If you rely heavily on raw foods, your chances of contracting e-coli definitely goes up.
nmg: Sure. And if you rely heavily on driving to get to work your chance of dying in an auto accident definitely go up.
Your analogy as written makes no sense. Merely driving to work or going for walks is not considered a health hazard. Relying a great deal on raw vegetables is, and (She says patiently for about the third time. Hey, maybe this time it will take.) not merely because they can be infected with e-coli. Uncooked cruciform vegetables can cause gastro-intestinal and thyroid problems, no matter how carefully they've been washed.
It would make more sense to compare relying on raw vegetables because you can't afford to cook them to driving to work in a car that has worn brake pads and steering problems because you can't afford to pay for the repair work. It would make more sense to compare relying on raw vegetables to walking through high crime neighborhoods because you can't afford to live anywhere else.
And your last analogy is downright nonsense. Are you seriously comparing poor people having to eat unhealthy diets to someone deliberately importing moles into their own back yard?
nmg: But then again, if every time you're eating raw vegetables it's in place of eating fast food, I'd say your chances are going down.
Not if you're relying on raw vegetables to the extent that the poor often have to rely on fast food.