“Bad” food is not free either. Something was paid for it. Take your example of hot chips. How much did they cost and how many people were you feeding them to? I’ll then provide you with a healthier alternative for the same cost.
Dude. 4 people. $4.
Also, I fed a family of 2 adults and 2 preschoolers on $40/week grocery money in the mid-90s. I was on a Sickness Benefit because I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and I still cooked six nights a week, and made my own fucking muesli bars. I was raised in a house where my mum fed a family of six on a part-time minimum-wage job. You'll forgive me if I sincerely doubt you have anything to teach me.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to feed my children some fucking hot chips.
So was what we have done with respect to tobacco also morally and practically wrong?
Yes. Food and tobacco are exactly the same.
I have no idea what is meant by “functional poverty” – but how can drinking free water, as opposed to not-free fizzy drink increase poverty?
But you're not just talking about sugary drinks, right? You're also talking about taxing "bad" food. So the cost of some foods goes up, and the costs of no foods go down, so people have to spend more money on food. Except the poorest people can't do that, so they have to go without something. Functional poverty. We already have kids going to school with no breakfast and no lunch. Is no food better than "bad" food?
a punitive tax seems to be the only thing we haven’t tried thus far
We haven't tried giving everyone ponies. It wouldn't work, but hey, we haven't tried it.
it’s not just their corporate friends that would scream foul
I'm against it because it's punitive - meaning punishing - and a horrible thing to do to people who are struggling. I'm against it because it would increase the functional poverty of families, and we all know that poverty is really bad for children. I'm against it because it's wrong both morally and practically.
were endorsed to prevent their being used to purchase booze.
Yeah. And my home-made pasta sauce has wine in it.
BUT we should change the government and get one that actually does something, like taxing the shit out of crap. I pointed this out early on in the thread. I see you didn’t comment one way or the other on that.
So, you want to make food more expensive for poor people?
Who’d a thought homemade pasta sauce could become so controversial, eh?
You mean, who'd have thought policing people's spending and eating could be so controversial?
I've been hand-to-mouth poor, with kids to feed. I know the cheapest way to fuel hungry people is hot chips. You don't fix that by making the chips more expensive. How about giving people enough money to be able to eat properly?
(My family doesn't get shamed for their food choices, of course, because our genes make us tall and slim with a fast metabolism. So we're clearly healthy.)
The following letter was written by me in response to Anke’s article in August 2015. I hope it can be received here with respect and honour.
Thank you for this, and for braving this space.
The Black Ferns win-loss-draw record is 62-8-1. (Or, looking at that table more closely, 9. I’m not great at maths, but I can’t work out how 7+1+1 is 8.)
This is what someone above (I think Emma) might have thought of John Potter.
No. Please restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth. I am not going to engage with you any further.
Well herein lie a problem. “Interesting” – think what you mean by that.
Katharine, I've listened to first-hand accounts by the victims. I'm tired of people insinuating that I'm siding with their abusers. If you want to accuse me of something, please come right out and do so.
I grew up in an abusive household, as most people here know. When you make these airy statements about mothers, that's MY MOTHER you're talking about. And I've sat at my desk weeping in impotent despair at these stories. My "interest" in causes is an "interest" in how we can stop these things happening again, how we stop being a society that allows them to happen.
Focussing on the main perpetrator’s “origin story” would be looking from the wrong POV, on this occasion.
And tbh, some of the interviews Bert barely comes up, and when he does, he's tangential. I guess, I just don't find him very interesting. But all the people around him, the bystanders, the enablers... Like Louise said when she got the letter, "What about the other 140 people? Where were they?"
And how many of the people who weren't Bert would ever have done the things they did if they hadn't been in an environment where that behaviour wasn't just normalised, but actively encouraged? That's why the whole concept of Evil fails me. I've listened to hours of John Potter talking, and believe me the impression I got of him was not favourable, but... he was Bert's son. He grew up surrounded by this stuff. What chance did he ever have of a normal life?
That's not to excuse the things in any way. It's an attempt to understand how it happens, what role group dynamics play.