I don't thing everyone being a commie will work out ether since it only need one or two guys who wants more or just wanna frick up and whole system will go down they drain
Not to mention not having enough food for the lower levels even if people on upper level fast
>capitalists have found a way to milk money by selling the idea of communism >commies think this is a own while giving giving cappies their money
The absolute state
I don't thing everyone being a commie will work out ether since it only need one or two guys who wants more or just wanna frick up and whole system will go down they drain
Not to mention not having enough food for the lower levels even if people on upper level fast
>Not to mention not having enough food for the lower levels even if people on upper level fast
this was the dumbest part of the movie, like ok if this is some social experiment where people will live if they share, it makes some twisted sense. But because of the lack of food, their choices don't matter at all
>their choices don't matter at all
but anon, they do matter. as floor placement was always a consequence of how the characters acted on the previous floor.
>Keep placing the asian woman who's there to save her daughter at the top >This is obviously a hint to the solution.
It's implied she was asking people to help her at the start given how she's known throughout the Pit. She obviously went nuts after perpetual failure to get people to help her.
The film is trying to say that the only action was to help her search for her child.
It's not a reward for her killing her cellmates.
She is the bait of the experiment. She tells everybody her child is here, in the pit, of which everyone is aware of the stakes.
The government wants the people to save the child and deliver her by taking into consideration the situation.
That child is at the lowest level, perpetually, to hide her and keep the mother from getting to her.
who feeds the child? how do they make sure she's still there?
2 years ago
Anonymous
the mother does when she makes it to her. they're separated again at the end of each month.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't get the experiment theory. I think it's more likely the child was born there and is unregistered with the administration. what would be the point of the experiment? who would be in the know?
she's just of victim of circumstance, like the mother. they might be doing a social experiment, but it's not about them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
its best not to ask questions of half-baked headcanon.
also not sure why you replied to me asking questions about said half-baked headcanon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I thought you were this guy
It's not a reward for her killing her cellmates.
She is the bait of the experiment. She tells everybody her child is here, in the pit, of which everyone is aware of the stakes.
The government wants the people to save the child and deliver her by taking into consideration the situation.
That child is at the lowest level, perpetually, to hide her and keep the mother from getting to her.
2 years ago
Anonymous
like i said, headcanon. the clearest purpose of the prison is simply population reduction and she happens to be stuck there with her kid.
>Not to mention not having enough food for the lower levels even if people on upper level fast
this was the dumbest part of the movie, like ok if this is some social experiment where people will live if they share, it makes some twisted sense. But because of the lack of food, their choices don't matter at all
Also stockpiling stuff that perishes slowly so you can consume it more efficiently over days means you get magically killed, even though that's the only way any kind society can feed itself reliably
The message falls a little flat when you have to throw in a bunch of arbitrary rules to make sure people don't do the obvious shit that breaks your little parable
The most obvious thing that would happen sooner or later is two or three upper levels banding together and riding that thing downwards enforcing some sort of system in the hopes it will benefit themselves in the long run.
It's all so badly constructed just to hammer the point home that PEOPLE SHOULD SHARE DURHURR!!!
what a concept.
>two or three upper levels banding together and riding that thing downwards enforcing some sort of system in the hopes it will benefit themselves in the long run.
why would they do that?
even if they did that, the main character and the troony getting thrown down into triple digits after trying to get people to ration the food indicates if you try to organize for the benefit of everyone, you'll be thrown down into the pit.
I honestly don't think the amount of food would be enough for everyone since this thing goes down like 200 levels. It's not enough food on this thing to feed 400 people.
Then there is the fact that it's completely random where you end up. Capitalism doesn't work that way. Once you are rich, you usually stay rich, same with being poor. Who even claims this is some sort of allegory for capitalism?
Must be because the film doesn't seem to be making a statement about capitalism.
The plot twist is that there are way too many floors of the pit to allow a form of rationing, especially if the implication is that nearly all the floors were occupied at the start of the experiment.
We aren't given enough info to come to the assumption that if the people at the top of the pit starved themselves the people at the bottom would eat either, in case the Director was trying to argue that the solution was for the "privileged" 1st floorers to forsake their meals.
The solution being the child suggests a completely different message. It implies that the lives of the people in the pit are less valuable than the child which is an attempt to convey that Children are the future.
This doesn't seem like an anti-capitalist message.
for me, the scene where the child is staring at the cake with hunger eyes, and they immediately abandon the idea they fought so hard for is like the Children of Men ending. if there's a child in the mix, it won't matter how dystopic the situation has become, they'll stop fighting because there's hope for the future.
he's probably being misquoted. imagine the scenario: the director wants to safeguard his work's integrity and let the viewer have his own take. stupid journalist asks "this is about capitalism, isn't it?", director replies "I guess you can see it like that, honestly your take depends on you". stupid journalist misquotes him and says the director says it's about capitalism.
it's always the case.
>Not to mention not having enough food for the lower levels even if people on upper level fast
this was the dumbest part of the movie, like ok if this is some social experiment where people will live if they share, it makes some twisted sense. But because of the lack of food, their choices don't matter at all
it’s explained in the movie that there’s enough for all
>it’s explained in the movie that there’s enough for all
no, it's speculated and then they go down and see that there are several hundred more levels than previously thought. Even if each level only eats one raisin a day, the food still wasn't enough
>I don't thing everyone being a commie will work out ether since it only need one or two guys who wants more or just wanna frick up and whole system will go down they drain
This logic is moronic. Any system can fail. You might as well be arguing that laws are useless since bad people can break them.
If you had an objective ruling class in the form of robots, you'd have a chance for communism to work. Even with replicators, the one who controls the starting elements would hold the power and thus control. But robots and/or AI would mean no one person who is infallible would make the whole system get corrupted.
Nothing that concerns me really but I'm fine with other people wanting a better life for their kids and I think telling them they can't do that is evil.
everyone who is rich today was born rich. even if they just went into spending-only mode, their children would be rich, and their children's children, and their children's children's children, etc, ad infinitum.
the "floors" are rungs of society, the time the platform stays on one represents a lifetime, the food is wealth.
Let's invest in internet coin! >The average man invests $100, at the end of a very good month he triples it and has 300$ >The rich man invests $25,000, at the end of a very good month he triples it and has $75,000
And even on a 2% profit the rich man now has $25,250 and made more than the average man in a particularly good situation. And neither of them made anything useful or visible to earn that money. That money came out of nothing and will be spent in something.
This is a bad thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
lmao wait until you find out about FIAT currencies, you fricking dork.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>heh... fiat currency!
I'm pretty sure he knows considering how much more knowledgeable he is in economics than you, you braindead hick
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That money came out of nothing and will be spent in something.
This sort of moronation is why we need IQ tests for voting privileges.
If your $100 of bitcoins increase in value by $200, it's only because someone is willing to exchange $300 of real money for them. Ergo the value did not 'come from nothing' but rather is always someone's earned value that they are trading for a bitcoins, in the hope that other people will be willing to trade them for even more earned value in the future. If the money came from nothing, then nobody would want it and it would have no value, like the ruble, for instance.
>billionaire
Seriously lost me there, what does this have to do with anything?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what does having more money than can be spent, have to do with a situation surrounding the top floors being provided with more food than they could ever eat
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You must be either be dirt poor or a billionaire. There's nothing in between!
hunter gatherers literally lived in a world where they could just walk walk around and there was free food on all the bushes and trees, yea. all fertile land has been privatized now. try walking through a farm today and plucking food, see how long it takes you to get arrested or shot.
There is so much CATHOLICISM bouncing around inside Spanish director's heads it's hard to tell if we are supposed to read the Jesus symbolism as like the main message of the film or just kind of the default set dressing for all allegorical films period.
I just want to know where they get all these people from
333 floors, 666 people but every month everyone below 100 odd is dead unless they kill and eat their cellmate, so that's an absolute minimum of 233 deaths per month, not counting suicides and crazy hot ninja ladies riding down and killing everyone along the way
You could pretty conservatively say a full half of everyone in there dies in the first week of each month, but there's a lengthy application process involving naming your favourite food and an object you want to bring in with you (meaning they're not funneling people from the prison system), so how do they keep it stocked up?
>233 deaths per month
bruh that's basically nothing. 90% of the prison population would jump at a "do a stint in this other prison, get out in a year" type offer
It wasn't just about capitalism. One of the minor reasons I hate this board:No one understands the movies they watch even if it's a Netflix or Marvel flick
>purposely misreading my post
This is why you can't understand a basic Neflix movie. Capitalism has THEORETICAL upward mobility. The platform doesn't. This alone doesn't make it Capitalism.
See this post:
he's probably being misquoted. imagine the scenario: the director wants to safeguard his work's integrity and let the viewer have his own take. stupid journalist asks "this is about capitalism, isn't it?", director replies "I guess you can see it like that, honestly your take depends on you". stupid journalist misquotes him and says the director says it's about capitalism.
it's always the case.
>director replies "I guess you can see it like that, honestly your take depends on you"
Part of the appeal its purposely ambiguous for morons like (you) to insert whatever political statement you want onto the movie as the lesson.
she was hungry, and thought the other woman was silly for bringing a dog to that place. from her perspective it's better to kill the dog than the owner.
Spain's economy relative to other european countries peaked in the 70's. We've been hovering since then. Saying democracy brought us global technological advancements is a falacy like saying Franco brought us televisions and nuclear energy.
Being poor in a country where soda is cheaper than water and where burgers are cheaper than bread makes you obese more quickly anon. For rich people, being fat is a choice. For poor people it's a sentence.
I've heard this reasoning a lot of times and it makes somewhat sense but it never really tracks for people who cook for themselves.
I think it's an oversimplification. I'm not even saying Americans are all exclusively morally dissolute gluttons, I think both stances are too convenient.
The homeless tend not to have access to cookware, and non-homeless poor people still just have easier access to extremely sugary and fatty foods. Cooking for yourself doesn't necessarily mean cooking healthily, since fresh vegetables are fricking expensive. It doesn't help that poor people are often also very dumb, but looking purely at convenience and cost there's really no denying that the US' dietary options pushes you towards obesity. But European countries are catching up!
Rather than the obese homeless angle, I'm not convinced by the "For rich people being fat is a choice, for poor people it's a sentence" angle.
Thermodynamically it's untrue, but that's not a point in favor of each stance, like many people think.
It makes sense to me given the kinds of foods that would be accessible to a bum, that they would easily be eating more calories than they would expend. For the rest, I think it has more to do with "culture" and knowledge rather than price and availability.
I also don't like that position, because it is used to imply that an increase in economic standing would beget a change to healthier eating habits.
>Thermodynamically it's untrue, but that's not a point in favor of each stance, like many people think.
Obviously consuming more calories than you expend will cause you to gain weight.
However, fast/cheap food often has low nutritional value, so it's a lot easier to consume foods that just fill your stomach with calories but nothing useful.
>What actually happens is that poor people are stupid and have low impulse control
This also happens, but is an oversimplification. Obviously it's a combination of both. In general, people will just choose the path of least resistance, which means some combination of convenience and cost, which naturally pushes people towards fast food.
It's like, being hungry sucks. You can get a McMenu for like $10 and fill your stomach real good and be not hungry for a few hours. Or you can spend that same $10 on some healthy food from the supermarket, which you still need to spend time preparing, and which probably leaves you feeling less satiated because you're already so used to these high-fat, high-sugar meals to begin with.
That said, it's obvious that this is by design because it certainly isn't economically beneficial to urge half your population into diabetes (and the healthcare system, which everyone pays for).
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh yeah, I agree with this post. Don't have much else to add.
Like you said it's more the low opportunity cost of unhealthy food rather than its actual cost (which is relatively low) the big factor.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's like, being hungry sucks. You can get a McMenu for like $10 and fill your stomach real good and be not hungry for a few hours. Or you can spend that same $10 on some healthy food from the supermarket, which you still need to spend time preparing, and which probably leaves you feeling less satiated because you're already so used to these high-fat, high-sugar meals to begin with.
This excuse would only make sense if junk food and fast food wasn't available to rich people and being rich meant that you had no choice but to eat healthy food and always had time to prepare a healthy meal. However, fewer rich people are obese even though they can theoretically afford to eat much more junk and fast food than the poors and often work long hours, and the reason for this is because poor fat people are dumb, lazy and irresponsible e.g.
>You can get a McMenu for like $10 and fill your stomach real good and be not hungry for a few hours. Or you can spend that same $10 on some healthy food from the supermarket
Dumb >which you still need to spend time preparing
Lazy >you're already so used to these high-fat, high-sugar meals to begin with.
Irresponsible.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't think he disagrees with you, he just isn't completely on the nature side of the nature vs nurture argument.
Dumb, lazy and irresponsible people became fat relatively recently, when the conditions allowed them to easily go for a calorie surplus. I don't think there were many fatties among the dirt poor in the 20th century.
Not really. Fat homeless people is almost uniquely an American thing. It's because Americans in general are nutritionally illiterate and think that a bag of doritos is real food. The price of buying a bag of spinach and a carton of milk isn't radically different from buying a box of oreo cookies and a 16 oz bottle of soda, and the former will sustain them longer since it's not just carbs and sugar.
If you're too poor to drink water from the tap or buy bread, then wouldn't it follow that you wouldn't be able to buy enough burgers to get fat?
I mean, for instance, a McDouble is $2 for 400cals right? So you have to spend like $10 just to hit the standard recommended caloric intake, and be eating 7 and half burgers every day to hit the 3000 odd cals per that you need for the average person to get properly fat. Nobody who is buying burgers purely because they're affordable is going to be downing 8 a day.
What actually happens is that poor people are stupid and have low impulse control and habitually do completely excessive stuff like eating $10 of fried chicken + a pack of Doritos in one sitting, then chugging gallons of HFCS fluids and malt liquor to wash it down, making them both very fat and very poor.
>capitalism is when you eat a lot of food since you might have no food soon
>capitalists have found a way to milk money by selling the idea of communism
>commies think this is a own while giving giving cappies their money
The absolute state
Yuromovie? Into the trash it goes
They made one of the best horror movies of all time
A yuromovie a good movie? lmao
What movie is that? Some Francois filme?
it was good enough for the americans to copy it. they tried to I mean.
Economics is... ... Le complex
I don't thing everyone being a commie will work out ether since it only need one or two guys who wants more or just wanna frick up and whole system will go down they drain
Not to mention not having enough food for the lower levels even if people on upper level fast
>Not to mention not having enough food for the lower levels even if people on upper level fast
this was the dumbest part of the movie, like ok if this is some social experiment where people will live if they share, it makes some twisted sense. But because of the lack of food, their choices don't matter at all
>their choices don't matter at all
but anon, they do matter. as floor placement was always a consequence of how the characters acted on the previous floor.
>Keep placing the asian woman who's there to save her daughter at the top
>This is obviously a hint to the solution.
It's implied she was asking people to help her at the start given how she's known throughout the Pit. She obviously went nuts after perpetual failure to get people to help her.
The film is trying to say that the only action was to help her search for her child.
she keeps killing her cellmate. so she gets placed near the top. sometimes she isn't able to kill her cellmate, so they don't see her go down.
It's not a reward for her killing her cellmates.
She is the bait of the experiment. She tells everybody her child is here, in the pit, of which everyone is aware of the stakes.
The government wants the people to save the child and deliver her by taking into consideration the situation.
That child is at the lowest level, perpetually, to hide her and keep the mother from getting to her.
oh, headcanon. sorry, carry on.
Rewatch the movie.
who feeds the child? how do they make sure she's still there?
the mother does when she makes it to her. they're separated again at the end of each month.
I don't get the experiment theory. I think it's more likely the child was born there and is unregistered with the administration. what would be the point of the experiment? who would be in the know?
she's just of victim of circumstance, like the mother. they might be doing a social experiment, but it's not about them.
its best not to ask questions of half-baked headcanon.
also not sure why you replied to me asking questions about said half-baked headcanon.
I thought you were this guy
like i said, headcanon. the clearest purpose of the prison is simply population reduction and she happens to be stuck there with her kid.
Also stockpiling stuff that perishes slowly so you can consume it more efficiently over days means you get magically killed, even though that's the only way any kind society can feed itself reliably
The message falls a little flat when you have to throw in a bunch of arbitrary rules to make sure people don't do the obvious shit that breaks your little parable
The most obvious thing that would happen sooner or later is two or three upper levels banding together and riding that thing downwards enforcing some sort of system in the hopes it will benefit themselves in the long run.
It's all so badly constructed just to hammer the point home that PEOPLE SHOULD SHARE DURHURR!!!
what a concept.
>two or three upper levels banding together and riding that thing downwards enforcing some sort of system in the hopes it will benefit themselves in the long run.
why would they do that?
even if they did that, the main character and the troony getting thrown down into triple digits after trying to get people to ration the food indicates if you try to organize for the benefit of everyone, you'll be thrown down into the pit.
How would 2 people on a level overpower 6 people riding downwards collecting weapons on their way?
I honestly don't think the amount of food would be enough for everyone since this thing goes down like 200 levels. It's not enough food on this thing to feed 400 people.
Then there is the fact that it's completely random where you end up. Capitalism doesn't work that way. Once you are rich, you usually stay rich, same with being poor. Who even claims this is some sort of allegory for capitalism?
>Who even claims this is some sort of allegory for capitalism
the director
Is he an idiot?
Must be because the film doesn't seem to be making a statement about capitalism.
The plot twist is that there are way too many floors of the pit to allow a form of rationing, especially if the implication is that nearly all the floors were occupied at the start of the experiment.
We aren't given enough info to come to the assumption that if the people at the top of the pit starved themselves the people at the bottom would eat either, in case the Director was trying to argue that the solution was for the "privileged" 1st floorers to forsake their meals.
The solution being the child suggests a completely different message. It implies that the lives of the people in the pit are less valuable than the child which is an attempt to convey that Children are the future.
This doesn't seem like an anti-capitalist message.
Or maybe the writers are just bad.
for me, the scene where the child is staring at the cake with hunger eyes, and they immediately abandon the idea they fought so hard for is like the Children of Men ending. if there's a child in the mix, it won't matter how dystopic the situation has become, they'll stop fighting because there's hope for the future.
he's probably being misquoted. imagine the scenario: the director wants to safeguard his work's integrity and let the viewer have his own take. stupid journalist asks "this is about capitalism, isn't it?", director replies "I guess you can see it like that, honestly your take depends on you". stupid journalist misquotes him and says the director says it's about capitalism.
it's always the case.
The movie criticises capitalist and communist economic systems. The inherent structure causes suffering, the attempt at revolution causes suffering.
it’s explained in the movie that there’s enough for all
>it’s explained in the movie that there’s enough for all
no, it's speculated and then they go down and see that there are several hundred more levels than previously thought. Even if each level only eats one raisin a day, the food still wasn't enough
>I don't thing everyone being a commie will work out ether since it only need one or two guys who wants more or just wanna frick up and whole system will go down they drain
This logic is moronic. Any system can fail. You might as well be arguing that laws are useless since bad people can break them.
If you had an objective ruling class in the form of robots, you'd have a chance for communism to work. Even with replicators, the one who controls the starting elements would hold the power and thus control. But robots and/or AI would mean no one person who is infallible would make the whole system get corrupted.
>shit gets you just handed from above in capitalism
Then why am I working so hard? What kind of shit system am I living in where I have to take action to eat?
>what is inheritance
Nothing that concerns me really but I'm fine with other people wanting a better life for their kids and I think telling them they can't do that is evil.
... wow how... childish and naive.
everyone who is rich today was born rich. even if they just went into spending-only mode, their children would be rich, and their children's children, and their children's children's children, etc, ad infinitum.
the "floors" are rungs of society, the time the platform stays on one represents a lifetime, the food is wealth.
>everyone who is rich today was born rich
Hahaha no
cope
Let's invest in internet coin!
>The average man invests $100, at the end of a very good month he triples it and has 300$
>The rich man invests $25,000, at the end of a very good month he triples it and has $75,000
And even on a 2% profit the rich man now has $25,250 and made more than the average man in a particularly good situation. And neither of them made anything useful or visible to earn that money. That money came out of nothing and will be spent in something.
This is a bad thing.
lmao wait until you find out about FIAT currencies, you fricking dork.
>heh... fiat currency!
I'm pretty sure he knows considering how much more knowledgeable he is in economics than you, you braindead hick
>That money came out of nothing and will be spent in something.
This sort of moronation is why we need IQ tests for voting privileges.
If your $100 of bitcoins increase in value by $200, it's only because someone is willing to exchange $300 of real money for them. Ergo the value did not 'come from nothing' but rather is always someone's earned value that they are trading for a bitcoins, in the hope that other people will be willing to trade them for even more earned value in the future. If the money came from nothing, then nobody would want it and it would have no value, like the ruble, for instance.
Well first off that's wrong and secondly it's not really a problem of any sorts aside from people like you thinking it's "unfair".
lmao, they think they'll be billionaires one day
>billionaire
Seriously lost me there, what does this have to do with anything?
>what does having more money than can be spent, have to do with a situation surrounding the top floors being provided with more food than they could ever eat
>You must be either be dirt poor or a billionaire. There's nothing in between!
>What kind of shit system am I living in where I have to take action to eat?
Humanity had always been doing that. Do you just expect things to be handed to you for free?
Well this movie says that's how it works under capitalism.
Shit exists and we just need to share.
hunter gatherers literally lived in a world where they could just walk walk around and there was free food on all the bushes and trees, yea. all fertile land has been privatized now. try walking through a farm today and plucking food, see how long it takes you to get arrested or shot.
So it's an allegory for trickle down ecconomy? Okay
It's about Jesus's harrowing of hell and nobody can convince me otherwise.
There is so much CATHOLICISM bouncing around inside Spanish director's heads it's hard to tell if we are supposed to read the Jesus symbolism as like the main message of the film or just kind of the default set dressing for all allegorical films period.
>obviously
No cap on a stack fr fr
I just want to know where they get all these people from
333 floors, 666 people but every month everyone below 100 odd is dead unless they kill and eat their cellmate, so that's an absolute minimum of 233 deaths per month, not counting suicides and crazy hot ninja ladies riding down and killing everyone along the way
You could pretty conservatively say a full half of everyone in there dies in the first week of each month, but there's a lengthy application process involving naming your favourite food and an object you want to bring in with you (meaning they're not funneling people from the prison system), so how do they keep it stocked up?
A giant concrete platform elevator is magically floating. This is a Cube type film, it's not supposed to make sense.
>233 deaths per month
bruh that's basically nothing. 90% of the prison population would jump at a "do a stint in this other prison, get out in a year" type offer
>This obliterates the commies
Was better written too
You should read his other book.
the one on israelites? is it worth it?
what are the political implications for her existence in that awful place?
>Netflix
It wasn't just about capitalism. One of the minor reasons I hate this board:No one understands the movies they watch even if it's a Netflix or Marvel flick
>it wasn't just about capitalism!
>refuses to elaborate
>leaves the thread
>IT'S LE CAPITALISM BECAHSE IT HAS LAYERS!!!
If it was capitalism, there would be theoretical level mobility in between the months including rising
Now post your IQ
>le upwards mobility
who falls for that shit
I do, I used to work rather shitty jobs now I work a well paying one.
I don't really see the problem, unless you are a drug addict or extremely stupid you can make a living and own shit.
>purposely misreading my post
This is why you can't understand a basic Neflix movie. Capitalism has THEORETICAL upward mobility. The platform doesn't. This alone doesn't make it Capitalism.
See this post:
>director replies "I guess you can see it like that, honestly your take depends on you"
Part of the appeal its purposely ambiguous for morons like (you) to insert whatever political statement you want onto the movie as the lesson.
>another movie against capitalism that actually shows communism
many such cases
>let's send them back an untouched cake, that will show daddy he's not the boss of me
spaniards are so infantile
Why did the Asian woman kill the dog? That's the only part that makes no sense to me
she was hungry, and thought the other woman was silly for bringing a dog to that place. from her perspective it's better to kill the dog than the owner.
Why is Spain such a totalitarian globohomosexual hellhole?
t. Spaniard
cuz Franco regime left them in a midcentury underdeveloped economy, so now they’re overcompensating for 50+ years of crippling undergrowth.
Spain's economy relative to other european countries peaked in the 70's. We've been hovering since then. Saying democracy brought us global technological advancements is a falacy like saying Franco brought us televisions and nuclear energy.
L BRACKET BROS, WHERE WE AT???
>these are the posts that made me seethe and I could only cope by replying with buzzwords
based brainlet
>filtered
>brainrot
>buzzwords
you need to go back (to reddit)
>watch trailer on YouTube
>all the comments are about how deep and profound this movie
God I fricking hate normies.
1/3rd of the homeless population in the US is obese.
Being poor in a country where soda is cheaper than water and where burgers are cheaper than bread makes you obese more quickly anon. For rich people, being fat is a choice. For poor people it's a sentence.
I've heard this reasoning a lot of times and it makes somewhat sense but it never really tracks for people who cook for themselves.
I think it's an oversimplification. I'm not even saying Americans are all exclusively morally dissolute gluttons, I think both stances are too convenient.
The homeless tend not to have access to cookware, and non-homeless poor people still just have easier access to extremely sugary and fatty foods. Cooking for yourself doesn't necessarily mean cooking healthily, since fresh vegetables are fricking expensive. It doesn't help that poor people are often also very dumb, but looking purely at convenience and cost there's really no denying that the US' dietary options pushes you towards obesity. But European countries are catching up!
Rather than the obese homeless angle, I'm not convinced by the "For rich people being fat is a choice, for poor people it's a sentence" angle.
Thermodynamically it's untrue, but that's not a point in favor of each stance, like many people think.
It makes sense to me given the kinds of foods that would be accessible to a bum, that they would easily be eating more calories than they would expend. For the rest, I think it has more to do with "culture" and knowledge rather than price and availability.
I also don't like that position, because it is used to imply that an increase in economic standing would beget a change to healthier eating habits.
>Thermodynamically it's untrue, but that's not a point in favor of each stance, like many people think.
Obviously consuming more calories than you expend will cause you to gain weight.
However, fast/cheap food often has low nutritional value, so it's a lot easier to consume foods that just fill your stomach with calories but nothing useful.
>What actually happens is that poor people are stupid and have low impulse control
This also happens, but is an oversimplification. Obviously it's a combination of both. In general, people will just choose the path of least resistance, which means some combination of convenience and cost, which naturally pushes people towards fast food.
It's like, being hungry sucks. You can get a McMenu for like $10 and fill your stomach real good and be not hungry for a few hours. Or you can spend that same $10 on some healthy food from the supermarket, which you still need to spend time preparing, and which probably leaves you feeling less satiated because you're already so used to these high-fat, high-sugar meals to begin with.
That said, it's obvious that this is by design because it certainly isn't economically beneficial to urge half your population into diabetes (and the healthcare system, which everyone pays for).
Oh yeah, I agree with this post. Don't have much else to add.
Like you said it's more the low opportunity cost of unhealthy food rather than its actual cost (which is relatively low) the big factor.
>It's like, being hungry sucks. You can get a McMenu for like $10 and fill your stomach real good and be not hungry for a few hours. Or you can spend that same $10 on some healthy food from the supermarket, which you still need to spend time preparing, and which probably leaves you feeling less satiated because you're already so used to these high-fat, high-sugar meals to begin with.
This excuse would only make sense if junk food and fast food wasn't available to rich people and being rich meant that you had no choice but to eat healthy food and always had time to prepare a healthy meal. However, fewer rich people are obese even though they can theoretically afford to eat much more junk and fast food than the poors and often work long hours, and the reason for this is because poor fat people are dumb, lazy and irresponsible e.g.
>You can get a McMenu for like $10 and fill your stomach real good and be not hungry for a few hours. Or you can spend that same $10 on some healthy food from the supermarket
Dumb
>which you still need to spend time preparing
Lazy
>you're already so used to these high-fat, high-sugar meals to begin with.
Irresponsible.
I don't think he disagrees with you, he just isn't completely on the nature side of the nature vs nurture argument.
Dumb, lazy and irresponsible people became fat relatively recently, when the conditions allowed them to easily go for a calorie surplus. I don't think there were many fatties among the dirt poor in the 20th century.
Not really. Fat homeless people is almost uniquely an American thing. It's because Americans in general are nutritionally illiterate and think that a bag of doritos is real food. The price of buying a bag of spinach and a carton of milk isn't radically different from buying a box of oreo cookies and a 16 oz bottle of soda, and the former will sustain them longer since it's not just carbs and sugar.
>his source is a YouTube video
If you're too poor to drink water from the tap or buy bread, then wouldn't it follow that you wouldn't be able to buy enough burgers to get fat?
I mean, for instance, a McDouble is $2 for 400cals right? So you have to spend like $10 just to hit the standard recommended caloric intake, and be eating 7 and half burgers every day to hit the 3000 odd cals per that you need for the average person to get properly fat. Nobody who is buying burgers purely because they're affordable is going to be downing 8 a day.
What actually happens is that poor people are stupid and have low impulse control and habitually do completely excessive stuff like eating $10 of fried chicken + a pack of Doritos in one sitting, then chugging gallons of HFCS fluids and malt liquor to wash it down, making them both very fat and very poor.
>netflix logo
so nice that shit movies get tagged so clearly
I at Popeyes while watching this. Then I finished eating and stopped watching
not really any kind of economical system when none of them work, no?
No!! It represents X system I hate because I love seeing my viewpoint being validated!
I mean they just kinda lie down and do nothing and food just come down from the sky