My tap water tastes like rust and I refuse to drink it. We use filter jugs and buy bottled water, which is a huge freaking scam, but it's nice to have something to grab when you're on your way out the door. Roughly 12 blocks away at my parents house their tap water tastes fine.
I almost guarantee you that your tap water is perfectly potable, even if you don't like the taste. That's one of the places that soda has really hurt people. They expect their hydration to be a delicious pleasure experience every time, rather than something necessary to be a healthy organism.
I don't really give a shit if it's safe to drink or not, if it tastes like shit and I have the option of not putting it in my mouth, I'm not going to. Thus why we buy filter pitchers. To filter the shit taste out of the water.
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
Darkewolfe, D.C. tapwater is some of the most unsafe in the US.
That's not actually true. There was an incident when chlorine levels spiked, but it was temporary. Yes, it caused a huge scare. Yes, it was really important to look at. However, it wasn't a sustained problem, it didn't last long enough to cause any danger, and people can happily drink the water out of their tap in DC without getting sick.
My tap water tastes like rust and I refuse to drink it. We use filter jugs and buy bottled water, which is a huge freaking scam, but it's nice to have something to grab when you're on your way out the door. Roughly 12 blocks away at my parents house their tap water tastes fine.
Yeah, tap water in my area is "fine" for you but it tastes like shit. I can understand someone preferring soda to water that tastes like a bidet run-off.
Bottled water can be pretty cheap if you buy it in jugs, though. The individually bottled stuff is kinda pricey, but generic 2.5 gallon jugs are about $2.50, which is a whole lot cheaper than soda.
But yes, just buying a filter is the way to go if you're aiming for cheap.
I think free water filters for poor homes would probably cost the government next to nothing (comparatively, i mean nationwide, we're talking tens of million dollars)
This isn't meant as a "if you're poor just do this sort of post, but if the problem is chlorine taste, filters don't actually take that out. Chlorine evaporates naturally as soon as water is exposed to air, so the reason your filtered water doesn't taste like chlorine anymore is because it's been sitting in a jug for a few hours. You can do that without the filter and have the same effect.
That's just on the chlorine taste, not other bad tastes or contaminants.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My tap water tastes like rust and I refuse to drink it. We use filter jugs and buy bottled water, which is a huge freaking scam, but it's nice to have something to grab when you're on your way out the door. Roughly 12 blocks away at my parents house their tap water tastes fine.
I almost guarantee you that your tap water is perfectly potable, even if you don't like the taste. That's one of the places that soda has really hurt people. They expect their hydration to be a delicious pleasure experience every time, rather than something necessary to be a healthy organism.
I don't really give a shit if it's safe to drink or not, if it tastes like shit and I have the option of not putting it in my mouth, I'm not going to. Thus why we buy filter pitchers. To filter the shit taste out of the water.
Well, hopefully you're able to budget to buy filters, bottled water, whatever works for you. It's not the responsibility of the state to make sure that you are at all times able to enjoy an exotic, orgasmic experience with each sip of a drink, though.
ITT, people who want to drink mountain dew while surfing forums while taking federal aid money complain that the menu doesn't provide sufficient variety.
Darkewolfe, D.C. tapwater is some of the most unsafe in the US.
That's not actually true. There was an incident when chlorine levels spiked, but it was temporary. Yes, it caused a huge scare. Yes, it was really important to look at. However, it wasn't a sustained problem, it didn't last long enough to cause any danger, and people can happily drink the water out of their tap in DC without getting sick.
Chlorine? Mm, no, I'm talking about the pervasive lead problem, though according to the EPA that has been dramatically lowered.
adytum on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Yeah silly guy wanting his drinking water to be palatable.
Yeah, tap water quality varies wildly. I don't mind a chlorine taste, personally, but I hate the stale old pipe taste that comes out of my current water. (And it stinks, too. I can smell it on myself sometimes after washing my hands.)
This may be a problem with your plumbing, and not with the municipal water system.
There used to be some water filter company that would do demonstrations where put some chlorine-based visible contaminant in a pitcher of water so it looked black and nasty, then pour it into an opaque PUR-style filter, let it sit for a minute, and then pour it out and go "LOOK AT OUT CLEAN IT IS!"
Hach: I'm certain it's plumbing and not the water system because it's worse when I haven't been home in a week.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
ITT, people who want to drink mountain dew while surfing forums while taking federal aid money complain that the menu doesn't provide sufficient variety.
My tap water tastes like rust and I refuse to drink it. We use filter jugs and buy bottled water, which is a huge freaking scam, but it's nice to have something to grab when you're on your way out the door. Roughly 12 blocks away at my parents house their tap water tastes fine.
I almost guarantee you that your tap water is perfectly potable, even if you don't like the taste. That's one of the places that soda has really hurt people. They expect their hydration to be a delicious pleasure experience every time, rather than something necessary to be a healthy organism.
I don't really give a shit if it's safe to drink or not, if it tastes like shit and I have the option of not putting it in my mouth, I'm not going to. Thus why we buy filter pitchers. To filter the shit taste out of the water.
Well, hopefully you're able to budget to buy filters, bottled water, whatever works for you. It's not the responsibility of the state to make sure that you are at all times able to enjoy an exotic, orgasmic experience with each sip of a drink, though.
ITT, people who want to drink mountain dew while surfing forums while taking federal aid money complain that the menu doesn't provide sufficient variety.
Yes you are correct, not wanting a foul taste in my mouth is the exact same as demanding an orgasm with every drink. Or maybe you're being a douche.
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
And my jab up there is a jab. What's really going on with this support is an attempt to A. improve the quality of life for people on food stamps, through improving their health by making them drink something healthier than soda in whatever way possible and B. curb expenses going into aid programs by not having a double pay-out go to poverty-stricken families that need support through food stamps AND end up increasing healthcare costs.
My tap water tastes like rust and I refuse to drink it. We use filter jugs and buy bottled water, which is a huge freaking scam, but it's nice to have something to grab when you're on your way out the door. Roughly 12 blocks away at my parents house their tap water tastes fine.
I almost guarantee you that your tap water is perfectly potable, even if you don't like the taste. That's one of the places that soda has really hurt people. They expect their hydration to be a delicious pleasure experience every time, rather than something necessary to be a healthy organism.
I don't really give a shit if it's safe to drink or not, if it tastes like shit and I have the option of not putting it in my mouth, I'm not going to. Thus why we buy filter pitchers. To filter the shit taste out of the water.
Well, hopefully you're able to budget to buy filters, bottled water, whatever works for you. It's not the responsibility of the state to make sure that you are at all times able to enjoy an exotic, orgasmic experience with each sip of a drink, though.
ITT, people who want to drink mountain dew while surfing forums while taking federal aid money complain that the menu doesn't provide sufficient variety.
Yes you are correct, not wanting a foul taste in my mouth is the exact same as demanding an orgasm with every drink. Or maybe you're being a douche.
I'm being very hyperbolic, but at the same time, I don't give a shit if you don't like the taste of water, or if you hate the taste of vegetables. You should consume both as main staples in your diet. If you don't, and you receive federal aid, we should force you to do it. The whole reason the federal aid is provided is to help improve your lifestyle, and having a healthy body is probably the most important part of any lifestyle.
Oh and by the by poor people on welfare often drink generic soda, which is dirt cheap regularly. (2$ a 12 pack compared to 5ish$ a 12pack for namebrand coke/pepsi whatever) and can be got for as cheap as $0.99/12pack on sales. I've seen people stock up on carts full of the shit, when it drops to that cheap. So the argument of soda being so expensive doesn't really fly if they're drinking generic.
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
Oh and by the by poor people on welfare often drink generic soda, which is dirt cheap regularly. (2$ a 12 pack compared to 5ish$ a 12pack for namebrand coke/pepsi whatever) and can be got for as cheap as $0.99/12pack on sales. I've seen people stock up on carts full of the shit, when it drops to that cheap. So the argument of soda being so expensive doesn't really fly if they're drinking generic.
I'm not aware of anyone saying soda is expensive. The argument is that soda is cheaper than anything else you can buy to drink (excepting tap water) and so people are drinking it too often. Rather than drinking tap water.
I use one of those brita water pitchers. They cost like 20 dollars, and you have to replace the filter every few months for like 5 dollars, but it's way cheaper than buying bottled water, and a lot less of a hassle trying to refill bottled water at those refilling stations by grocery stores.
Seriously, the expensive water argument isn't something I really understand. Gainesville has shitty water, but once it goes through the filter, it's pretty good.
I don't know guys, I can think of many anecdotal situations where not being able to buy a can of soda with food stamps may lead to pretty awkward social situations.
I approve of the effort, but I'm not sure that's the way to reduce consumption of soft drinks. Seems more a political action of "Fucking poor people never spend the stamps on what they should because they don't know better!" than "Let's actually try and improve the health of low income families.".
It isn't that at all. The purpose of food stamps is to keep the people that can't afford food from fucking starving, not to provide "thirst quenching" HFCS water with zero nutritional value.
Fuck you if you want a coke and can't afford a coke. I'm not going to shed any tears for the "pretty awkward social situation" you've been put in.
I agree with Dee. The uproar would be huge but I've dreamt of a program where food stamps were relegated to just approved essentials, all healthy. The more that junk food is an status symbol of the elite, the better. That being said, it's kinda hard to head in that direction when processed foods are so much cheaper to produce than healthy substitutes.
I have no interest in trading ad homs with you while you build up some downtrodden hero narrative for yourself, and no true scottsman different types of government assistance, so good luck buddy. I've got some monocles to polish.
Don't wanna trade words? Don't call me a fraud for doing the right thing for my friends. As far as downtrodden hero narrative, you can read whatever you want into my actions, it doesn't change what I've done, and I'll stand by my life choices quite firmly thanks.
geeze, where do you people live where soda is cheaper by volume than bottled water
It's cheaper in my area than the 12-packs of little 12oz bottles of water, but it's not cheaper than getting a big jug and filling it at the machine.
Bottled water (as in the 12-packs of little 12oz bottles) a scam though and we shouldn't be supporting its purchase in huge quantities.
If clean safe tap water isn't available to the vast majority of the population that's a separate problem that needs to be fixed.
0.355 liters, huh. What an odd unit.
geeze #2, where do you live where buying soda or water in two-liter bottles (or whatever units you use) isn't cheaper than buying tons of little bottles
I mean, buying bottled water in general is still expensive compared to tap water, but if someone isn't flogging gigantic two-liter or five-liter bottles when tap water is not appealing to drink for whatever reason, then something is badly wrong... I mean, you see that stuff in the third world easily. Supermarkets or corner stores with a shelf full of neatly arranged bottles. That not economical where you live for some reason?
They don't generally have 2 liter water bottles here. The only place I can think of that even sells the jugs of water is wal-mart which is almost... 10+ miles out of my way. What a waste. Cheaper for me to drink the gasoline.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Huh, that's... weird. Maybe my perspective is just skewed; I spend most of my time either in dense urban centers or areas so rural the tap water has to be boiled to be safe.
I still don't get how soda gets to be cheaper than water, although perhaps sugar subsidies play into that at some point.
Huh, that's... weird. Maybe my perspective is just skewed; I spend most of my time either in dense urban centers or areas so rural the tap water has to be boiled to be safe.
I still don't get how soda gets to be cheaper than water, although perhaps sugar subsidies play into that at some point.
If he's way into the breadbasket they have some crazy, crazy corn subsidies out there. I'm not sure if 79c 2-liter bottles are still the norm everywhere else, but they are dang close in price here to jug style water. It's actually kinda sad.
I think a lot of liberal ivory tower crap is going on in this thread.
Which is to say, most of you are missing the point. As a society, we WANT people to go on foodstamps when they need it. The government doesn't discourage it in the least; they try to get the word out. We can go into the reasons for this later, if you wish, but I think some things need to be said.
Such as-
Who in fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not eat?
Food stamp money is not your money. Once you are taxed, it is the government's money to do with as it wills with (hopefully) more intelligence than you yourself would do with it in terms of overall goodwill.
A person on foodstamps is someone in need; they are not your Goddamn child to tell what to do, when. I've been on food stamps myself, as have some people now who are very affluent (and I'm not doing too bad myself). The point is to smooth the bumps and support our society with a safety net.
We want people to use foodstamps when they can qualify for them. We don't want to discourage their use or make people feel bad/uncomfortable/whatever and then choose not to use them and suffer further economic damage and make the hole they're in bigger and bigger. Society tends to get awful shaky when you've got desperate people running around, as anyone with a brain damn well knows.
Who in fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not eat?
Stop taking this to a personal level, in any way.
The idea behind this change is to increase health for families on food stamps. Those families, in urban centers, show a very high rate of substituting soda for water. This causes debilitating health problems for them, and is a serious problem that city governments have been fighting in recent years. By targeting that specific problem, they potentially reduce emergency medical costs, improve healthy lifestyles in the targeted communities, and generally improve the lives of people. The whole idea behind government programs like that are to provide for the welfare of the people.
We want people to use foodstamps when they can qualify for them. We don't want to discourage their use or make people feel bad/uncomfortable/whatever and then choose not to use them and suffer further economic damage and make the hole they're in bigger and bigger. Society tends to get awful shaky when you've got desperate people running around, as anyone with a brain damn well knows.
This is really silly hand-wringing. Nobody is going to stop using food stamps and not eat because they can't buy soda any more than they would because they can't buy drugs with it.
If you're poor enough to need food stamps you are going to be doing your damndest to get food to eat. Trust me.
Who in fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not eat?
Stop taking this to a personal level, in any way.
The idea behind this change is to increase health for families on food stamps. Those families, in urban centers, show a very high rate of substituting soda for water. This causes debilitating health problems for them, and is a serious problem that city governments have been fighting in recent years. By targeting that specific problem, they potentially reduce emergency medical costs, improve healthy lifestyles in the targeted communities, and generally improve the lives of people. The whole idea behind government programs like that are to provide for the welfare of the people.
And a link in this very thread showed that poor people don't consume more unhealthy foods than wealthy people.
So, try again?
There are some things you can't legislate. You can't legislate away a person's desire for a food product and it's stupid to attempt to do so. You want people to eat healthier? Mandate the food providers to meet a certain criteria. That effects EVERYONE and doesn't focus exclusively on the downtrodden.
Frankly, that makes me sick and I'll take it as personally as I please.
As a healthcare worker, I'm actually kinda behind this. I've always strongly felt that a legal mandate to provide care should be coupled with a legal mandate for those most unable to pay for it to be accountable for their own health.
I understand what you mean, but I think it would be more accurate to say that we are not allowing them to be accountable for their own health.
Pretty sure it is hypocritical to raise a fuss when the government tries to control what people buy if you aren't poor, and applauds them when the control what the poor people eat.
If you rephrase this to be, "raise a fuss when the government tries to control what people buy with their own money, but applaud them when they try to control what the government is buying for people..." then is very much not hypocritical and seems rational. Though I don't oppose the idea of a junk food tax.
Don't wanna trade words? Don't call me a fraud for doing the right thing for my friends. As far as downtrodden hero narrative, you can read whatever you want into my actions, it doesn't change what I've done, and I'll stand by my life choices quite firmly thanks.
It is fraud. That is a pretty simple fact. You should stop acting like this was a call to flame war. You should also acknowledge that it would have made more sense if your claim was that you had to help your friend out by buying him some TP, instead of claiming that you had to help him out by having him spend his food stamps on junk food for you. Either way, you should just quit being so angry and insulting about it. It's cluttering the thread. Lots of people including yourself have various valid viewpoints here that should be respected.
Anyway, my main problem with this is that nutritional science seems to be centuries behind other sciences. Government-backed nutritional science seems particularly horrid, full of massive lobbyist and special interests pumping up dairy and grains, and for many years was going backwards. The Four Food Groups was better than the disastrous Food Pyramid that followed it. Obesity-realted disorders is like the first health issue ever that medicine has focused heavily on for some time, and yet it just gets steadily worse. Likely because we are strill so ignorant about nutrition. My sons play an educational computer game from the 90s, and in one part it makes them promise to eat as little fat as possible and eat mostly grains in their diet. I want to scream at the computer, it could hardly be more completely incorrect, it is making my kids promise to do what the AMA just recently said is the worst thing you can do in your diet. A lot of the momentum for legislation against sugary stuff began as momentum for legislation against fatty foods... good thing we've started to figure out how wrong we were about that. Phew, on with the attack on soda! One could probably make the case that you'd do better to ban sliced bread, but good luck with that. And in another few years we'll probably completely change course and decide that protein is the real killer or something. So, yeah, I agree with the "let's see if it actually works" provision.
Who in fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not eat?
Stop taking this to a personal level, in any way.
The idea behind this change is to increase health for families on food stamps. Those families, in urban centers, show a very high rate of substituting soda for water. This causes debilitating health problems for them, and is a serious problem that city governments have been fighting in recent years. By targeting that specific problem, they potentially reduce emergency medical costs, improve healthy lifestyles in the targeted communities, and generally improve the lives of people. The whole idea behind government programs like that are to provide for the welfare of the people.
And a link in this very thread showed that poor people don't consume more unhealthy foods than wealthy people.
So, try again?
There are some things you can't legislate. You can't legislate away a person's desire for a food product and it's stupid to attempt to do so. You want people to eat healthier? Mandate the food providers to meet a certain criteria. That effects EVERYONE and doesn't focus exclusively on the downtrodden.
Frankly, that makes me sick and I'll take it as personally as I please.
But wealthy people can fund their own healthcare.
As the very first post noted, a state responsibility to health comes with a state right over said health.
Who in fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not eat?
Stop taking this to a personal level, in any way.
The idea behind this change is to increase health for families on food stamps. Those families, in urban centers, show a very high rate of substituting soda for water. This causes debilitating health problems for them, and is a serious problem that city governments have been fighting in recent years. By targeting that specific problem, they potentially reduce emergency medical costs, improve healthy lifestyles in the targeted communities, and generally improve the lives of people. The whole idea behind government programs like that are to provide for the welfare of the people.
And a link in this very thread showed that poor people don't consume more unhealthy foods than wealthy people.
So, try again?
There are some things you can't legislate. You can't legislate away a person's desire for a food product and it's stupid to attempt to do so. You want people to eat healthier? Mandate the food providers to meet a certain criteria. That effects EVERYONE and doesn't focus exclusively on the downtrodden.
Frankly, that makes me sick and I'll take it as personally as I please.
You're uh... you're flatly wrong, I guess? Citing statistics on the eating habits of poor people as a whole doesn't have anything to do with what we're discussing, and what this targets. Poor people in urban centers are shown to do exactly that. Look at the topic being discussed, again, too. This isn't targeted at all unhealthy foods. It is specifically targeted at soda. Which is a specific problem in urban centers in the northeast.
And again, this isn't about putting down the poor. No one is becoming a desperate, depressed, axe-wielding maniac on the street because they didn't get a pepsi. In fact, as you said yourself, the goal is to help people get out of poverty, or at least not dig themselves deeper into it. In the specific urban centers being targeted by this action, there is a high rate of people suffering health effects from sugary drinks, which doubtless inevitably causes them additional medical bills they can't afford.
Derrick, don't take it personally, Darkewolfe just thinks that poor people don't deserve to have things that taste good when they're not using their own money.
If you're poor enough to need food stamps you are going to be doing your damndest to get food to eat. Trust me.
Exactly my point.
You know what the percentage of people who respond to the hypothetical question in the affirmative "Is it okay to steal food for your starving child?" Now just start compounding the externalities of desperate people not using government assistance when they need it and instead making due however they can.
I worked with a man once you said, point blank, "Hey, we're from the hood. We'll find a way. It may not be right but we're gonna be alright.
The fact that it's just sugary drinks and not entire swaths of convenience store fare (which could make it hard for families that don't have time to get to the suburbs and into actual grocery stores) is worth noting. The only thing this makes harder to get is stuff with absolutely zero redeeming value as nutritional intake.
Should the personal nutrition of the food stamper be the only factor? I think me not running you over with my car because I'm groggy from not having my morning coffee with sugar is pretty beneficial to you. Or does adding cream make it a milk-based beverage and therefore exempt from the ban?
Of course, I wouldn't even be driving if I could bike, but the ban also prevents me from buying Gatorade. Oh well, I'm sure discouraging exercise among the poor will help lower their obesity rates.
Well, as long as nutrition is the #1 concern
Food stamps also cannot be used to buy alcohol, cigarettes or items such as pet food, vitamins or household goods.
Damn those poor people using my tax dollars to get some B12! They should get it through liver and shellfish like the rest of us.
The vitamins thing is weird, and should be corrected. But haven't studies shown that morning groginess is more an issue with lack of hydration than actually needing quick, caffeine style energy? There's more simple sugar available in an apple than in a cup of coffee, just have that if you think the next 45 minutes are going to be rough without a boost.
Gatorade isn't necessary for physical exercise. At all. People were staying in shape long before it came on the market, and some of us are doing it now without ever touching the stuff. I'm hoping that was just a silly sidebar and not an attempt to make a point.
Well, that depends on what type of exercise you're doing. Gatorade probably isn't necessary for taking a jog around the block, but water doesn't cut it for high-level athletics unless you're going to add bananas and salt tablets. And while Gatorade has gotten a lot more sugary in the last decade and basically become a soft drink, even its original version down in Gainesville had sugar added.
On a related note, should public sector employees be allowed to buy soda (or smokes or booze)? My tax dollars are paying for that too, as well as their health care.
If you rephrase this to be, "raise a fuss when the government tries to control what people buy with their own money, but applaud them when they try to control what the government is buying for people..." then is very much not hypocritical and seems rational. Though I don't oppose the idea of a junk food tax.
Only if you supposed that everyone on food stamps is always going to be on it and is a net drain on the system, which is a load of total shit.
When you say "our money" you mean theirs as well unless they're poor forever, which in this economy is a silly sentiment to believe
override367 on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Who in fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not eat?
Are you posing this question to the governor of NYS, the mayor of NYC, the NY state legislature, or me?
The first three are elected representatives that are well within their power to modify public policy.
If you're asking me, I'm just a dude thats pretty firmly in the anti-pediatric diabeet-us camp, who gets to see this ad several times a week on the subway courtesy of the city of New York.
Wait, re-post the link that says that poorer people don't eat more unhealthy foods. That goes against a lot of what I've read.
Also, I did a taste test this weekend between high-end bottled water and notoriously bad tap, and I totally failed. I'm sure there are some pipe problems out there, but bottled water is in many cases less safe than tap, and a lot of the taste difference is often completely circumstantial. As long as they are both the same temperature you're unlikely to really taste a difference.
If you rephrase this to be, "raise a fuss when the government tries to control what people buy with their own money, but applaud them when they try to control what the government is buying for people..." then is very much not hypocritical and seems rational. Though I don't oppose the idea of a junk food tax.
Only if you supposed that everyone on food stamps is always going to be on it and is a net drain on the system, which is a load of total shit.
When you say "our money" you mean theirs as well unless they're poor forever, which in this economy is a silly sentiment to believe
Pretty sure you didn't read correctly, as your reply doesn't logically address anything I said.
Posts
I don't really give a shit if it's safe to drink or not, if it tastes like shit and I have the option of not putting it in my mouth, I'm not going to. Thus why we buy filter pitchers. To filter the shit taste out of the water.
That's not actually true. There was an incident when chlorine levels spiked, but it was temporary. Yes, it caused a huge scare. Yes, it was really important to look at. However, it wasn't a sustained problem, it didn't last long enough to cause any danger, and people can happily drink the water out of their tap in DC without getting sick.
I think free water filters for poor homes would probably cost the government next to nothing (comparatively, i mean nationwide, we're talking tens of million dollars)
That's just on the chlorine taste, not other bad tastes or contaminants.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, hopefully you're able to budget to buy filters, bottled water, whatever works for you. It's not the responsibility of the state to make sure that you are at all times able to enjoy an exotic, orgasmic experience with each sip of a drink, though.
ITT, people who want to drink mountain dew while surfing forums while taking federal aid money complain that the menu doesn't provide sufficient variety.
Chlorine? Mm, no, I'm talking about the pervasive lead problem, though according to the EPA that has been dramatically lowered.
This may be a problem with your plumbing, and not with the municipal water system.
Hach: I'm certain it's plumbing and not the water system because it's worse when I haven't been home in a week.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
>.>
Yes you are correct, not wanting a foul taste in my mouth is the exact same as demanding an orgasm with every drink. Or maybe you're being a douche.
I'm being very hyperbolic, but at the same time, I don't give a shit if you don't like the taste of water, or if you hate the taste of vegetables. You should consume both as main staples in your diet. If you don't, and you receive federal aid, we should force you to do it. The whole reason the federal aid is provided is to help improve your lifestyle, and having a healthy body is probably the most important part of any lifestyle.
I'm not aware of anyone saying soda is expensive. The argument is that soda is cheaper than anything else you can buy to drink (excepting tap water) and so people are drinking it too often. Rather than drinking tap water.
It's cheaper in my area than the 12-packs of little 12oz bottles of water, but it's not cheaper than getting a big jug and filling it at the machine.
Bottled water (as in the 12-packs of little 12oz bottles) a scam though and we shouldn't be supporting its purchase in huge quantities.
If clean safe tap water isn't available to the vast majority of the population that's a separate problem that needs to be fixed.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Seriously, the expensive water argument isn't something I really understand. Gainesville has shitty water, but once it goes through the filter, it's pretty good.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I agree with Dee. The uproar would be huge but I've dreamt of a program where food stamps were relegated to just approved essentials, all healthy. The more that junk food is an status symbol of the elite, the better. That being said, it's kinda hard to head in that direction when processed foods are so much cheaper to produce than healthy substitutes.
Don't wanna trade words? Don't call me a fraud for doing the right thing for my friends. As far as downtrodden hero narrative, you can read whatever you want into my actions, it doesn't change what I've done, and I'll stand by my life choices quite firmly thanks.
0.355 liters, huh. What an odd unit.
geeze #2, where do you live where buying soda or water in two-liter bottles (or whatever units you use) isn't cheaper than buying tons of little bottles
I mean, buying bottled water in general is still expensive compared to tap water, but if someone isn't flogging gigantic two-liter or five-liter bottles when tap water is not appealing to drink for whatever reason, then something is badly wrong... I mean, you see that stuff in the third world easily. Supermarkets or corner stores with a shelf full of neatly arranged bottles. That not economical where you live for some reason?
I still don't get how soda gets to be cheaper than water, although perhaps sugar subsidies play into that at some point.
If he's way into the breadbasket they have some crazy, crazy corn subsidies out there. I'm not sure if 79c 2-liter bottles are still the norm everywhere else, but they are dang close in price here to jug style water. It's actually kinda sad.
Which is to say, most of you are missing the point. As a society, we WANT people to go on foodstamps when they need it. The government doesn't discourage it in the least; they try to get the word out. We can go into the reasons for this later, if you wish, but I think some things need to be said.
Such as-
Who in fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not eat?
Food stamp money is not your money. Once you are taxed, it is the government's money to do with as it wills with (hopefully) more intelligence than you yourself would do with it in terms of overall goodwill.
A person on foodstamps is someone in need; they are not your Goddamn child to tell what to do, when. I've been on food stamps myself, as have some people now who are very affluent (and I'm not doing too bad myself). The point is to smooth the bumps and support our society with a safety net.
We want people to use foodstamps when they can qualify for them. We don't want to discourage their use or make people feel bad/uncomfortable/whatever and then choose not to use them and suffer further economic damage and make the hole they're in bigger and bigger. Society tends to get awful shaky when you've got desperate people running around, as anyone with a brain damn well knows.
Stop taking this to a personal level, in any way.
The idea behind this change is to increase health for families on food stamps. Those families, in urban centers, show a very high rate of substituting soda for water. This causes debilitating health problems for them, and is a serious problem that city governments have been fighting in recent years. By targeting that specific problem, they potentially reduce emergency medical costs, improve healthy lifestyles in the targeted communities, and generally improve the lives of people. The whole idea behind government programs like that are to provide for the welfare of the people.
This is really silly hand-wringing. Nobody is going to stop using food stamps and not eat because they can't buy soda any more than they would because they can't buy drugs with it.
If you're poor enough to need food stamps you are going to be doing your damndest to get food to eat. Trust me.
And a link in this very thread showed that poor people don't consume more unhealthy foods than wealthy people.
So, try again?
There are some things you can't legislate. You can't legislate away a person's desire for a food product and it's stupid to attempt to do so. You want people to eat healthier? Mandate the food providers to meet a certain criteria. That effects EVERYONE and doesn't focus exclusively on the downtrodden.
Frankly, that makes me sick and I'll take it as personally as I please.
If you rephrase this to be, "raise a fuss when the government tries to control what people buy with their own money, but applaud them when they try to control what the government is buying for people..." then is very much not hypocritical and seems rational. Though I don't oppose the idea of a junk food tax.
It is fraud. That is a pretty simple fact. You should stop acting like this was a call to flame war. You should also acknowledge that it would have made more sense if your claim was that you had to help your friend out by buying him some TP, instead of claiming that you had to help him out by having him spend his food stamps on junk food for you. Either way, you should just quit being so angry and insulting about it. It's cluttering the thread. Lots of people including yourself have various valid viewpoints here that should be respected.
Anyway, my main problem with this is that nutritional science seems to be centuries behind other sciences. Government-backed nutritional science seems particularly horrid, full of massive lobbyist and special interests pumping up dairy and grains, and for many years was going backwards. The Four Food Groups was better than the disastrous Food Pyramid that followed it. Obesity-realted disorders is like the first health issue ever that medicine has focused heavily on for some time, and yet it just gets steadily worse. Likely because we are strill so ignorant about nutrition. My sons play an educational computer game from the 90s, and in one part it makes them promise to eat as little fat as possible and eat mostly grains in their diet. I want to scream at the computer, it could hardly be more completely incorrect, it is making my kids promise to do what the AMA just recently said is the worst thing you can do in your diet. A lot of the momentum for legislation against sugary stuff began as momentum for legislation against fatty foods... good thing we've started to figure out how wrong we were about that. Phew, on with the attack on soda! One could probably make the case that you'd do better to ban sliced bread, but good luck with that. And in another few years we'll probably completely change course and decide that protein is the real killer or something. So, yeah, I agree with the "let's see if it actually works" provision.
But wealthy people can fund their own healthcare.
As the very first post noted, a state responsibility to health comes with a state right over said health.
You're uh... you're flatly wrong, I guess? Citing statistics on the eating habits of poor people as a whole doesn't have anything to do with what we're discussing, and what this targets. Poor people in urban centers are shown to do exactly that. Look at the topic being discussed, again, too. This isn't targeted at all unhealthy foods. It is specifically targeted at soda. Which is a specific problem in urban centers in the northeast.
And again, this isn't about putting down the poor. No one is becoming a desperate, depressed, axe-wielding maniac on the street because they didn't get a pepsi. In fact, as you said yourself, the goal is to help people get out of poverty, or at least not dig themselves deeper into it. In the specific urban centers being targeted by this action, there is a high rate of people suffering health effects from sugary drinks, which doubtless inevitably causes them additional medical bills they can't afford.
So, no u try again?
Exactly my point.
You know what the percentage of people who respond to the hypothetical question in the affirmative "Is it okay to steal food for your starving child?" Now just start compounding the externalities of desperate people not using government assistance when they need it and instead making due however they can.
I worked with a man once you said, point blank, "Hey, we're from the hood. We'll find a way. It may not be right but we're gonna be alright.
Well, that depends on what type of exercise you're doing. Gatorade probably isn't necessary for taking a jog around the block, but water doesn't cut it for high-level athletics unless you're going to add bananas and salt tablets. And while Gatorade has gotten a lot more sugary in the last decade and basically become a soft drink, even its original version down in Gainesville had sugar added.
On a related note, should public sector employees be allowed to buy soda (or smokes or booze)? My tax dollars are paying for that too, as well as their health care.
Only if you supposed that everyone on food stamps is always going to be on it and is a net drain on the system, which is a load of total shit.
When you say "our money" you mean theirs as well unless they're poor forever, which in this economy is a silly sentiment to believe
Are you posing this question to the governor of NYS, the mayor of NYC, the NY state legislature, or me?
The first three are elected representatives that are well within their power to modify public policy.
If you're asking me, I'm just a dude thats pretty firmly in the anti-pediatric diabeet-us camp, who gets to see this ad several times a week on the subway courtesy of the city of New York.
Also, I did a taste test this weekend between high-end bottled water and notoriously bad tap, and I totally failed. I'm sure there are some pipe problems out there, but bottled water is in many cases less safe than tap, and a lot of the taste difference is often completely circumstantial. As long as they are both the same temperature you're unlikely to really taste a difference.
Pretty sure you didn't read correctly, as your reply doesn't logically address anything I said.