|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 13 2016 07:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +
Madeleine Albright: My Undiplomatic Moment
I HAVE spent much of my career as a diplomat. It is an occupation in which words and context matter a great deal. So one might assume I know better than to tell a large number of women to go to hell.
But last Saturday, in the excitement of a campaign event for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, that is essentially what I did, when I delivered a line I have uttered a thousand times to applause, nodding heads and laughter: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” It is a phrase I first used almost 25 years ago, when I was the United States ambassador to the United Nations and worked closely with the six other female U.N. ambassadors. But this time, to my surprise, it went viral.
I absolutely believe what I said, that women should help one another, but this was the wrong context and the wrong time to use that line. I did not mean to argue that women should support a particular candidate based solely on gender. But I understand that I came across as condemning those who disagree with my political preferences. If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied.
However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another. In a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up. And while young women may not want to hear anything more from this aging feminist, I feel it is important to speak to women coming of age at a time when a viable female presidential candidate, once inconceivable, is a reality.
I have been out of public office for a decade and a half. I have devoted much of my life since to teaching, writing and helping to make sure younger women face fewer obstacles than my generation did. When I speak to groups of women of all ages, I am struck that despite all that has changed, I am still asked the same questions: “How do you maintain work-life balance? What can I do to succeed in a male profession? What advice should I give my daughter?”
When I answer these questions, I inevitably reflect upon the difficulties my generation faced. I share these stories not to bemoan how hard my life has been. It’s turned out pretty well. What concerns me is that if we do not pay careful attention to this history, the gains we have fought so hard for could be lost, and we could move backward. I do not have a magic formula for how every woman should live her life, but I do know that we need to give one another a hand.
The battle for gender equality is still being waged, and it will be easier if we have a woman who prioritizes these issues in the Oval Office and if the gender balance among elected officials reflects that of our country. When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits. They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or oppose.
Despite decades of progress, women still make less money than men for equivalent work. Paid family leave remains an elusive dream. Sexual abuse against women continues to plague our communities. And many politicians still act as though the top threat to our national security is Planned Parenthood.
In the meantime, outdated attitudes persist. To this day, I sometimes feel a squirm of anxiety when I interrupt a discussion in a room with only men. I see women in public office being criticized on television for their hairstyle or tone of voice. And I regularly hear successful businesswomen criticized as “too emotional.”
Even so, I am concerned by the tone of the debate about the many problems that specifically affect women. We cannot be complacent, and we cannot forget the hard work it took us to get to where we are. I would argue that because of what is at stake, this is exactly the time to have a conversation about how to preserve what women have gained, including the right to make our own choices, and how to move forward together. I would welcome an informed dialogue that crosses generations. We have much to learn from one another.
A few years ago, not long after Hillary Clinton succeeded Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, one of my granddaughters asked: “So what’s the big deal about Grandma Maddy being secretary of state? I thought only girls are secretary of state.”
My hope is that young women like my two granddaughters — those who have lived in a world where Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, who played school sports thanks to Title IX and who have never had to check “married” or “single” on a job application — will build on the progress we have made. But that will happen only if women help one another. And for those who do that, there will always be a special place of honor.
----
Madeleine Albright was the secretary of state from 1997 to 2001.
Source
Damage has been done and the "I'm sorry if I offended you" apology isn't going to make it better. We all know she knew what she was doing and is only apologizing because it backfired.
If suddenly there was a wave of guilt and a swing in female support for Hillary she wouldn't be walking anything back.
|
Transparency is a good thing when the populace isn't ignorant. Ideally people would be given the information about the products they buy so they can make a better more informed decision for themselves and their loved ones. Decisions based on knowledge and science and not quackery and fear mongering. In a world where GMO = Boogey man and "Chemical" means battery acid because a large swath of the populace is made of ignorant impressionable terrified children suddenly transparency and labeling stuff gets a little weird.
|
On February 13 2016 06:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2016 06:28 Deathstar wrote:On February 13 2016 06:14 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 06:09 Deathstar wrote:
Dude we are living in the 21st century. Food for survival ship has departed. Food is for nutrition and pleasure. Many of the food sold today have the facade of having nutrition.
Many of the bread in stores today are total garbage. Like I said earlier, vegetables are less nutritious. We are eating food that taste and smell like they have something of value (following our instincts) but in reality do not. Bread is a good example because of how devoid of nutrition it is but it's marketed as something with fiber (very little if any) with pictures of wheat on it. Bread has nutrients in the same way a grape soda has antioxidants. Bread has never been good for humans. It's still not. Ask any anthropologist. And you still need to cite this claim that vegetables today don't have nutrients. We are eating more healthily today than at any point in the history of civilization. Where we go wrong is quantity. Malnutrition used to be a real issue in the people of Western Europe and America because they couldn't afford meat, eggs, vegetables and so forth and relied too heavily on bread. The issue these days is one of excess only, in terms of food quality you have never had it so good. This idea that a chicken 70 years ago was better is absurd, a chicken 70 years ago was unavailable. We are not eating more healthily. What makes you think that? We have an obesity epidemic. Most of the country is either overweight, obese, or extremely obese, which bring about massive personal and social problems. Type 2 diabetes is rampant among children which is normally exclusive to adults. High blood pressure, cancer, strokes, etc. are now up. Look at France. France is a developed country like the US but they have half the obesity rate than we do. Italy has an obese population of about 10%. I say France and Italy because these two countries are known for their famous cuisine. They have cultures revolving around fine food. Excess is a problem. But why is excess our problem? We are all the same humans. It's our food that's shit. Our meat are mass produced with baby chicken (normal chicken used to be adults which are more healthy and tasty. Baby chickens taste worse) stuffed with fat, carbs, and antibiotics. Our vegetables ARE less nutritious (reasons can be argued but the decrease in nutrition is a fact). Our great food corporations have succeeded in producing so much calories but as a trade off fucked us in the nutrition department. Aside from a few things (corn syrip mostly) your food is no more shit then our food. The problem the US has with food is mentality. A Cola in the US is the same as a Cola in Europe, but we don't drink 30 oz free refill cups of it at McDonalds tho. It is all in the head and the culture. ? I thought Europe banned GMOs? GMOs aren't good dude.Europe has the edge in food quality.
nonGMOs are worse or equal in food quality to GMOs. (in most cases the only difference is price with equal quality, but in some cases like golden rice the GMO is not only cheaper but healthier)
|
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference.
|
On February 13 2016 07:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Transparency is a good thing when the populace isn't ignorant. Ideally people would be given the information about the products they buy so they can make a better more informed decision for themselves and their loved ones. Decisions based on knowledge and science and not quackery and fear mongering. In a world where GMO = Boogey man and "Chemical" means battery acid because a large swath of the populace is made of ignorant impressionable terrified children suddenly transparency and labeling stuff gets a little weird.
Sorry no. You don't get to have a free market saturated w advertising in some contexts and not in others based on arbitrary "consumer ignorance" justifications. The burden is on GMO producers to compete in the market.
|
On February 13 2016 06:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 06:28 Deathstar wrote:On February 13 2016 06:14 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 06:09 Deathstar wrote:
Dude we are living in the 21st century. Food for survival ship has departed. Food is for nutrition and pleasure. Many of the food sold today have the facade of having nutrition.
Many of the bread in stores today are total garbage. Like I said earlier, vegetables are less nutritious. We are eating food that taste and smell like they have something of value (following our instincts) but in reality do not. Bread is a good example because of how devoid of nutrition it is but it's marketed as something with fiber (very little if any) with pictures of wheat on it. Bread has nutrients in the same way a grape soda has antioxidants. Bread has never been good for humans. It's still not. Ask any anthropologist. And you still need to cite this claim that vegetables today don't have nutrients. We are eating more healthily today than at any point in the history of civilization. Where we go wrong is quantity. Malnutrition used to be a real issue in the people of Western Europe and America because they couldn't afford meat, eggs, vegetables and so forth and relied too heavily on bread. The issue these days is one of excess only, in terms of food quality you have never had it so good. This idea that a chicken 70 years ago was better is absurd, a chicken 70 years ago was unavailable. We are not eating more healthily. What makes you think that? We have an obesity epidemic. Most of the country is either overweight, obese, or extremely obese, which bring about massive personal and social problems. Type 2 diabetes is rampant among children which is normally exclusive to adults. High blood pressure, cancer, strokes, etc. are now up. Look at France. France is a developed country like the US but they have half the obesity rate than we do. Italy has an obese population of about 10%. I say France and Italy because these two countries are known for their famous cuisine. They have cultures revolving around fine food. Excess is a problem. But why is excess our problem? We are all the same humans. It's our food that's shit. Our meat are mass produced with baby chicken (normal chicken used to be adults which are more healthy and tasty. Baby chickens taste worse) stuffed with fat, carbs, and antibiotics. Our vegetables ARE less nutritious (reasons can be argued but the decrease in nutrition is a fact). Our great food corporations have succeeded in producing so much calories but as a trade off fucked us in the nutrition department. You said things used to be better so our basis of comparison is the past. The average American is eating much more healthily. Again you need to remember that regular access to meat, to eggs, to butter and so forth is an exception historically, not the norm. The norm is this bread that Plansix loves so much which is incredibly bad for you if not eaten as part of a varied diet. The problem of excess is still a problem but you need to compare apples to apples. The fair comparison to make is not with a chicken today and a chicken 70 years ago, it's a chicken today and no chicken at all. It's with Walmart veg today and no veg. We are eating more healthily. Hell, look at recruiting standards over time. We have a clear historical record of the physical shape of the American male population. Eating too much food is a problem but quality of the diet of the average person has never been better. The old problem used to be that foods outside of the staples were unavailable, the new problem is we have too much of them.
Not a nutritionist, but I'm not sure this is true at all. Meat and eggs are not healthy at all; at least not in the quantity a modern "western" diet (ab)uses them. We also eat starches in far too vast quantities, but that at least is something we have been doing since the invention of agriculture. The main thing we have going for us is the increase in vegetables and fruits in the winter (due to greenhouses and worldwide shipping), but that may very well be offset by the general excess of calories (particularly in industrial processed food). And that is ignoring lesser issues like the aforementioned reduction in nutrients from vegetables, but also increased intake of heavy metals and other toxins due to industrial pollutants in our food.
I'd google this shit, but I'm too lazy. I just really think your world view is far too rosy.
|
United States43458 Posts
On February 13 2016 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference.
You think you can tell the difference between Walmart and Whole Foods. Do the double blind study and repeat it a bunch of times and get back to us. Also use comparable chickens, whole refrigerated chicken breasts for both or whatever, not just cheapest from each. They cater to different markets, cheapest is no guarantee of comparability.
What about salt? Can you taste the difference between brand name salt from Whole Foods and regular cooking salt from Walmart?
|
On February 13 2016 07:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 07:11 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who has been to a show or concert and gone to their fancy "cafe" with $15 plates only to find that the food looks and tastes like Aramark catered bullshit knows that there is real variance in food quality, as it impacts taste, satiety, and overall satisfaction. I contend that "Walmart food," on the whole, is more like Aramark food than higher quality stuff. Just ignoring any unsubstantiated arguments about the nutritional content of said meals, it's immediately and directly apparent to anyone who has experienced the difference how these meals disparately impact food choices in the future. Aramark food leads to bad choices because it is unsatisfying at a gut, visceral level. Are we comparing like with like here? Clove of garlic from Walmart vs garlic from Whole Foods or whatever? Same cut of meat from Walmart vs one from your butcher? Branded salt vs regular salt? Banana from Dole vs banana from Dole (but more expensive)? Obviously I can tell the difference between things like peanut butter and grape jelly but that's such a stupid question I dismissed it out of hand. My argument with Plansix was that the produce in Walmart is going to be much the same as any other produce. The suggestion that started this was that poor people who shop at Walmart can't possibly eat healthily because the produce is fundamentally worse if you pay less for it.
I never said that. I said the produce at my local supermarket was higher quality than the product at my local walmart. That the food was not exactly the same, like you claimed, since they didn’t have a butcher and only solid pre-packaged meats that were packaged at a different store.
Like I get that you have a point that there likely isn’t a massive difference it quality, but unless you are going to come and spot check these stores, trust me that you’re better off going Rosh brothers if you want fresh mushrooms that will keep longer. But you'll pay more.
|
Stop describing things as "healthy" or "unhealthy." Healthy is not an adjective that applies to foods, only to persons. "Nutritious" is the adjective you are looking for. "Healthy" choices are made only in the context of a complete diet and lifestyle.
|
maybe if you buy stuff in brine solution or something like that, but if youre going to buy regular fresh* chicken tenderloin in the little styrofoam trays i doubt it's possible to tell apart the difference. all this stuff is fda graded. it's like trying to tell coca cola and pepsi apart.
|
On February 13 2016 07:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference. You think you can tell the difference between Walmart and Whole Foods. Do the double blind study and repeat it a bunch of times and get back to us. Also use comparable chickens, whole refrigerated chicken breasts for both or whatever, not just cheapest from each. They cater to different markets, cheapest is no guarantee of comparability. What about salt? Can you taste the difference between brand name salt from Whole Foods and regular cooking salt from Walmart?
You seem to think that I've been arguing that it's impossible to find nutritious food at walmart. That was never the case. I have no qualms in saying that salt is not something I buy at a "whole foods." Salt is pretty much salt.
And obviously if you have the SAME product at both stores it's going to be the same kwark. This is getting stupid. The proper comparison is that MOST chicken sold at walmart is of lower quality chicken than that sold at bourgeois organic air-chilled place. Not that sometimes the chicken is comparable. Buying prime cuts of meat at safeway is usually comparably priced to prime cuts at some more upscale store. The difference there is in the quantity and variety.
|
United States43458 Posts
On February 13 2016 07:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 06:45 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 06:28 Deathstar wrote:On February 13 2016 06:14 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 06:09 Deathstar wrote:
Dude we are living in the 21st century. Food for survival ship has departed. Food is for nutrition and pleasure. Many of the food sold today have the facade of having nutrition.
Many of the bread in stores today are total garbage. Like I said earlier, vegetables are less nutritious. We are eating food that taste and smell like they have something of value (following our instincts) but in reality do not. Bread is a good example because of how devoid of nutrition it is but it's marketed as something with fiber (very little if any) with pictures of wheat on it. Bread has nutrients in the same way a grape soda has antioxidants. Bread has never been good for humans. It's still not. Ask any anthropologist. And you still need to cite this claim that vegetables today don't have nutrients. We are eating more healthily today than at any point in the history of civilization. Where we go wrong is quantity. Malnutrition used to be a real issue in the people of Western Europe and America because they couldn't afford meat, eggs, vegetables and so forth and relied too heavily on bread. The issue these days is one of excess only, in terms of food quality you have never had it so good. This idea that a chicken 70 years ago was better is absurd, a chicken 70 years ago was unavailable. We are not eating more healthily. What makes you think that? We have an obesity epidemic. Most of the country is either overweight, obese, or extremely obese, which bring about massive personal and social problems. Type 2 diabetes is rampant among children which is normally exclusive to adults. High blood pressure, cancer, strokes, etc. are now up. Look at France. France is a developed country like the US but they have half the obesity rate than we do. Italy has an obese population of about 10%. I say France and Italy because these two countries are known for their famous cuisine. They have cultures revolving around fine food. Excess is a problem. But why is excess our problem? We are all the same humans. It's our food that's shit. Our meat are mass produced with baby chicken (normal chicken used to be adults which are more healthy and tasty. Baby chickens taste worse) stuffed with fat, carbs, and antibiotics. Our vegetables ARE less nutritious (reasons can be argued but the decrease in nutrition is a fact). Our great food corporations have succeeded in producing so much calories but as a trade off fucked us in the nutrition department. You said things used to be better so our basis of comparison is the past. The average American is eating much more healthily. Again you need to remember that regular access to meat, to eggs, to butter and so forth is an exception historically, not the norm. The norm is this bread that Plansix loves so much which is incredibly bad for you if not eaten as part of a varied diet. The problem of excess is still a problem but you need to compare apples to apples. The fair comparison to make is not with a chicken today and a chicken 70 years ago, it's a chicken today and no chicken at all. It's with Walmart veg today and no veg. We are eating more healthily. Hell, look at recruiting standards over time. We have a clear historical record of the physical shape of the American male population. Eating too much food is a problem but quality of the diet of the average person has never been better. The old problem used to be that foods outside of the staples were unavailable, the new problem is we have too much of them. Not a nutritionist, but I'm not sure this is true at all. Meat and eggs are not healthy at all; at least not in the quantity a modern "western" diet (ab)uses them. We also eat starches in far too vast quantities, but that at least is something we have been doing since the invention of agriculture. The main thing we have going for us is the increase in vegetables and fruits in the winter (due to greenhouses and worldwide shipping), but that may very well be offset by the general excess of calories (particularly in industrial processed food). And that is ignoring lesser issues like the aforementioned reduction in nutrients from vegetables, but also increased intake of heavy metals and other toxins due to industrial pollutants in our food. I'd google this shit, but I'm too lazy. I just really think your world view is far too rosy.
Fortunately you're allowed to be a nutritionist. You see nutritionist is actually a bullshit title made up by people who couldn't qualify to be a dietitian which is the actual term. So I'm a nutritionist and so are you. And that person standing in the health food store who advises you on which nuts will best align your chakras, so is she.
Pre-WW2 in the UK the diet of the average person in the cities included next to no fresh vegetables, meat, eggs, milk or any of the other foods outside of basic carbs like bread. Rationing wasn't just to keep people fed, it also served to make the urban population of the UK get their basic nutritional needs met. Excess has brought its own set of problems but this idea of a virtuous past and the glorification of bread is a nonsense, the only reasonable comparison to make is with having today's chicken vs no chicken at all.
|
United States43458 Posts
On February 13 2016 07:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 07:26 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference. You think you can tell the difference between Walmart and Whole Foods. Do the double blind study and repeat it a bunch of times and get back to us. Also use comparable chickens, whole refrigerated chicken breasts for both or whatever, not just cheapest from each. They cater to different markets, cheapest is no guarantee of comparability. What about salt? Can you taste the difference between brand name salt from Whole Foods and regular cooking salt from Walmart? You seem to think that I've been arguing that it's impossible to find nutritious food at walmart.
That was the argument you jumped into. If you don't want to be involved don't be involved.
What you now appear to be arguing is that you can tell the difference between two different products. Well done. Gold star.
My argument was always that an onion is pretty much an onion, a bunch of bananas is pretty much the same anywhere, that the poor are not priced out of nutritious produce. That shopping at Walmart does not automatically prevent you from having access to good food.
|
On February 13 2016 07:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
maybe if you buy stuff in brine solution or something like that, but if youre going to buy regular fresh* chicken tenderloin in the little styrofoam trays i doubt it's possible to tell apart the difference. all this stuff is fda graded. it's like trying to tell coca cola and pepsi apart.
It's actually fucking easy to tell pepsi and coke apart.
But identical fda yellow styrofoam chicken breasts are the same at every store. "Whole foods" just has better selection of higher quality stuff. (whole foods is a stand in for upscale, i know that whole foods itself actually is actually a vicious margin seeker that basically overprices everything even when only a few of their things are even different from competitors).
|
On February 13 2016 07:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
maybe if you buy stuff in brine solution or something like that, but if youre going to buy regular fresh* chicken tenderloin in the little styrofoam trays i doubt it's possible to tell apart the difference. all this stuff is fda graded. it's like trying to tell coca cola and pepsi apart.
Sort of. The use and sell by dates are not regulated like most people think they are.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/food-product-dating/food-product-dating
Some of them are made up. Others are practical or state law. Some are just bullshit. Some states allow chicken to be frozen and stored before sale as long as it doesn't' say "Fresh" on it. Others don't.
Edit: Kwark, you argued that Walmart had the ability to buy the same quality food, therefore it was always the same quality, even though I said that was the opposite of my personal experience.
|
On February 13 2016 07:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 07:32 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2016 07:26 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference. You think you can tell the difference between Walmart and Whole Foods. Do the double blind study and repeat it a bunch of times and get back to us. Also use comparable chickens, whole refrigerated chicken breasts for both or whatever, not just cheapest from each. They cater to different markets, cheapest is no guarantee of comparability. What about salt? Can you taste the difference between brand name salt from Whole Foods and regular cooking salt from Walmart? You seem to think that I've been arguing that it's impossible to find nutritious food at walmart. That was the argument you jumped into. If you don't want to be involved don't be involved. What you now appear to be arguing is that you can tell the difference between two different products. Well done. Gold star. My argument was always that an onion is pretty much an onion, a bunch of bananas is pretty much the same anywhere, that the poor are not priced out of nutritious produce.
No one gives a shit about bananas. Chicken is not chicken, beef is not beef.
|
On February 13 2016 07:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 07:32 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2016 07:26 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference. You think you can tell the difference between Walmart and Whole Foods. Do the double blind study and repeat it a bunch of times and get back to us. Also use comparable chickens, whole refrigerated chicken breasts for both or whatever, not just cheapest from each. They cater to different markets, cheapest is no guarantee of comparability. What about salt? Can you taste the difference between brand name salt from Whole Foods and regular cooking salt from Walmart? You seem to think that I've been arguing that it's impossible to find nutritious food at walmart. That was the argument you jumped into. If you don't want to be involved don't be involved. What you now appear to be arguing is that you can tell the difference between two different products. Well done. Gold star. My argument was always that an onion is pretty much an onion, a bunch of bananas is pretty much the same anywhere, that the poor are not priced out of nutritious produce.
I thought the original argument was that Walmart was evil because they underpay their staff and import everything from China, which in turn was a spinoff conversation from the benefits/downsides of trade agreements. So if people veer wildly offtopic I'm not sure anybody should be blaming them.
|
United States43458 Posts
On February 13 2016 07:38 IgnE wrote:
Chicken is not chicken
On February 13 2016 07:37 IgnE wrote:
But identical fda yellow styrofoam chicken breasts are the same at every store.
Also I eat bananas daily. They're pretty great. You should look into them.
|
On February 13 2016 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference.
This argument reminds me of teenagers arguing over cannabis quality vs price. With pretty much any product there is a bare minimum of accepted quality, then it progresses until you find the price point which holds the best value, then there's another level that caters to specific preferences that are largely/completely subjective
Walmart has a blend of bare minimum and best value, products there's just no other way besides purchasing both to determine which is which in many cases.
As a naturally frugal person, and having gone to many fancy dinners (for work) I wanted so bad for the expensive fancy meal to taste worse (and the sides often did, still withholding comment on seasoning) despite that, the meat was incomparable to the cuts and quality I would find at my local Walmart.about 90% of the time.
Like many problems in the US, it's less a problem about quantity or quality and has more to do with availability and distribution.
80-90% of the square feet of a supermarket not being fresh food is not necessary (or beneficial imo) but it sure is profitable.
|
On February 13 2016 07:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 07:32 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2016 07:26 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I can tell the difference between the cheapest chicken at walmart and the cheapest chicken from whole foods cooked without any other ingredients, in the same way.
Your best argument would be that I can't tell the difference when that chicken is cubed and thrown into identical curries. But I think I'd still probably be better than chance. I would be happy to volunteer for any double blind study that wanted to test the difference. You think you can tell the difference between Walmart and Whole Foods. Do the double blind study and repeat it a bunch of times and get back to us. Also use comparable chickens, whole refrigerated chicken breasts for both or whatever, not just cheapest from each. They cater to different markets, cheapest is no guarantee of comparability. What about salt? Can you taste the difference between brand name salt from Whole Foods and regular cooking salt from Walmart? You seem to think that I've been arguing that it's impossible to find nutritious food at walmart. That was the argument you jumped into. If you don't want to be involved don't be involved. What you now appear to be arguing is that you can tell the difference between two different products. Well done. Gold star. My argument was always that an onion is pretty much an onion, a bunch of bananas is pretty much the same anywhere, that the poor are not priced out of nutritious produce. That shopping at Walmart does not automatically prevent you from having access to good food.
I can guarantee you that not all onions (or any fresh produce) are made equal.
If I go to the local hortifruti (a supermarket focused on fresh vegetables), most of the onions in the rack are fresh, and don't have mold hiding underneath the outer shell. If I go to the Carrefour (or *shudder* Dia), the onions are more often than not, rotten on the inside. Similarly, I can get fairly decent tomatoes at the hortifruti, but the ones in the cornerstore are mostly green or rotten. I thus have to pay particular attention and find nice fresh, ripe tomatoes and onions, and in the case of onions, can even then go wrong. Whereas at the hortifruti, I can just pick almost at random. I do pay a bit more, but am fairly sure my groceries are of a decent quality.
Now because yall live in 1st world countries, I´m sure the differences are less pronounced, but I don´t doubt that they are still there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
