In Toronto, people go hungry all the time

Renegade · May 8, 2009

Like if today more than yesterday work could enrich people.

Benoit, have you been enriched by your lack of work or whatever it is you do? I can say that I have been enriched by the work I have undertaken, and as an employee I certainly don't feel taken advantage of.

benny · May 9, 2009

- Your bias is obvious in the choice of your words: "complained" instead of "revealed".

- About internet, a parent may well sacrifice food for their long term opportunities of a child.

- In Toronto, you find easily hungry people who still have relatives in the poorest countries.

- Work addicts are those who can feel enriched by an unfinished (art) work.

Renegade · May 9, 2009

- Your bias is obvious in the choice of your words: "complained" instead of "revealed".

So you don't have issue with the content of what I say but you quibble with the words I use to express that content? The dictionary definition of "complain" is "to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault". Is that not a more accurate decription of what transpired?

It is the claims of hunger which are biased. I don't believe either the respondants nor you are aware of what true hunger is.

- About internet, a parent may well sacrifice food for their long term opportunities of a child.

They may also decide that cable TV provides long term opportunities for a child. There is no shortage of choices of where a parent can spend money for the benefit of a child if they so choose.

The fact that they are hungry because of their choice still means it is their choice despite the availability of alternatives. I am happy we live in a free society where they are alowed to make such a choice.

- In Toronto, you find easily hungry people who still have relatives in the poorest countries.

So? Who ever said otherwise? The issue addressed was whether there was a comparison between hunger in Toronto and some other poor regions. Unless an individual has experienced real hunger, they are not likely to fully appreciate it, even if they "know" about it or have relatives in poorer countries.

- Work addicts are those who can feel enriched by an unfinished (art) work.

So, are you one of those enriched by your lack of work? Do you even work at all?

Oleg Bach · May 9, 2009

So you don't have issue with the content of what I say but you quibble with the words I use to express that content? The dictionary definition of "complain" is "to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault". Is that not a more accurate decription of what transpired?
It is the claims of hunger which are biased. I don't believe either the respondants nor you are aware of what true hunger is.

They may also decide that cable TV provides long term opportunities for a child. There is no shortage of choices of where a parent can spend money for the benefit of a child if they so choose.

The fact that they are hungry because of their choice still means it is their choice despite the availability of alternatives. I am happy we live in a free society where they are alowed to make such a choice.

So? Who ever said otherwise? The issue addressed was whether there was a comparison between hunger in Toronto and some other poor regions. Unless an individual has experienced real hunger, they are not likely to fully appreciate it, even if they "know" about it or have relatives in poorer countries.

So, are you one of those enriched by your lack of work? Do you even work at all?

This one up manship between common people is how you are controlled - devide and conquer - as long as the slaves like you are bikering and competing against each other "Do you even work at all"? Then the system runs it self - and those in control just laugh at you...Its like upper middle management is hired on the grounds that they will whip the lower slaves (management) - and managment is hired on the grounds that they will harm and prod those lower down the food chain until you get to rubes and hicks who will say as a greeting "are you workin?" - Everyone works - some get paid and some do not. Stop competing and join forces.

Renegade · May 9, 2009

This one up manship between common people is how you are controlled - devide and conquer - as long as the slaves like you are bikering and competing against each other "Do you even work at all"? Then the system runs it self - and those in control just laugh at you...Its like upper middle management is hired on the grounds that they will whip the lower slaves (management) - and managment is hired on the grounds that they will harm and prod those lower down the food chain until you get to rubes and hicks who will say as a greeting "are you workin?"

So if upper middle managment are slaves, as are lover managment, and as are workers, isn't upper management slaves too, afterall they too are hired to keep the rest of the company in line? Are you better off being a slave or an owner, when a compny bedomes bankrupted?

Everyone works - some get paid and some do not.

Not according to Benoit. He proclaims a disdain for work, hence the question.

Stop competing and join forces.

To do what?

benny · May 9, 2009

So you don't have issue with the content of what I say but you quibble with the words I use to express that content? The dictionary definition of "complain" is "to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault". Is that not a more accurate decription of what transpired?
It is the claims of hunger which are biased. I don't believe either the respondants nor you are aware of what true hunger is.

They may also decide that cable TV provides long term opportunities for a child. There is no shortage of choices of where a parent can spend money for the benefit of a child if they so choose.

The fact that they are hungry because of their choice still means it is their choice despite the availability of alternatives. I am happy we live in a free society where they are alowed to make such a choice.

So? Who ever said otherwise? The issue addressed was whether there was a comparison between hunger in Toronto and some other poor regions. Unless an individual has experienced real hunger, they are not likely to fully appreciate it, even if they "know" about it or have relatives in poorer countries.

So, are you one of those enriched by your lack of work? Do you even work at all?

- Do your own study if you want to question this study's results.

- People transfer choices to the young to get rid of the present system.

- Saying "real hunger has to be experienced" destroys your credibility.

- Work is a mass distraction that allows a few rich to abuse power.

Renegade · May 9, 2009

- Do your own study if you want to question this study's results.

I have not actually questioned their results. In fact I have quoted their results. That they show that when asked, people of low income say that they want more food is not a surprise.

- People transfer choices to the young to get rid of the present system.

The are free to do so, but then they also accept the consequence of their choice.

- Saying "real hunger has to be experienced" destroys your credibility.

How so? Unless you are malnourished you have no idea what hunger is. That you think my credibility is destroyed is pretty much irrelevant to me.

- Work is a mass distraction that allows a few rich to abuse power.

So Benoit, do you work? If your answer is no, it explains a lot about you. If you answer yes, it shows how hypocritical your position is.

M.Dancer · May 9, 2009

Hunger in Toronto is like a 320 woman who says she will starve if she doesn't get 5 big mac super sized combos a day.

I have no doubt some parents send their kids to school hungry. I have a friend who teaches in the Forest Hill area who says she encounters it all the time. She brings it up at the parent teacher interviews and the parents half the time say the kids don't like breakfast or it's because the nannies forget to pack a lunch....

I figure a bowl of cereal must cost about .50 cents....toast and peanut butter maybe .30 cents. A good sandwich like ham and cheese or tuna and cheese might cost .75 if they splurge.

If kids go hungry it's not because people are poor. It's because parents are choosing 5 big mac supersized combos over buying food for their kids.

benny · May 9, 2009

I have not actually questioned their results. In fact I have quoted their results. That they show that when asked, people of low income say that they want more food is not a surprise.
The are free to do so, but then they also accept the consequence of their choice.

How so? Unless you are malnourished you have no idea what hunger is. That you think my credibility is destroyed is pretty much irrelevant to me.

So Benoit, do you work? If your answer is no, it explains a lot about you. If you answer yes, it shows how hypocritical your position is.

- The results show the contrary: hungry people try not to show that they need more food by avoiding food banks.

- An adult ready to die to make of his children revolutionaries will not be there to bear the consequences.

- The poor are accurately examined/questioned by well-nourished physicians and lawyers to evaluate hunger.

- No one has ever worked. Those who pretend working are just searching an excuse to remain heartless.

Renegade · May 10, 2009

- The results show the contrary: hungry people try not to show that they need more food by avoiding food banks.

They can't really be hungry enough if they avoid food banks. So your claim is that in order to avoid showing they are hungry they avoid food banks but when asked they will fess up? They are showing remarkable fortitude in hiding their hunger.

- An adult ready to die to make of his children revolutionaries will not be there to bear the consequences.

According to you, the conseqences are immediate: hunger.

- The poor are accurately examined/questioned by well-nourished physicians and lawyers to evaluate hunger.

Really? Isn't it notable that we don't rely solely on self-reporting to accurately determine the status of anything else? Or is it your contention that only the poor tell the truth when questioned?

- No one has ever worked. Those who pretend working are just searching an excuse to remain heartless.

Avoidiing the question again? If no one has ever worked then what is your issue with work. You are clearly against work, but it should be a non-issue since according to you "No one has ever worked".

I'm going to guess based upon your evasiveness that you are one of the unemployed who doesn't qualify for EI, has to rely on welfare, and blames the rest of the world for your situation.

M.Dancer · May 10, 2009

- The results show the contrary: hungry people try not to show that they need more food by avoiding food banks.
- An adult ready to die to make of his children revolutionaries will not be there to bear the consequences.

- The poor are accurately examined/questioned by well-nourished physicians and lawyers to evaluate hunger.

- No one has ever worked. Those who pretend working are just searching an excuse to remain heartless.

Oleg's daffier brother strikes again..

benny · May 10, 2009

They can't really be hungry enough if they avoid food banks. So your claim is that in order to avoid showing they are hungry they avoid food banks but when asked they will fess up? They are showing remarkable fortitude in hiding their hunger.
According to you, the conseqences are immediate: hunger.

Really? Isn't it notable that we don't rely solely on self-reporting to accurately determine the status of anything else? Or is it your contention that only the poor tell the truth when questioned?

Avoidiing the question again? If no one has ever worked then what is your issue with work. You are clearly against work, but it should be a non-issue since according to you "No one has ever worked".

I'm going to guess based upon your evasiveness that you are one of the unemployed who doesn't qualify for EI, has to rely on welfare, and blames the rest of the world for your situation.

- According to you, the poor tried to please the University of Toronto.

- According to me, most conservatives don't choose to die during a revolution.

- Social scientists may be expert witnesses before a court.

- Like everyone I'm gifted by a generous and wealthy nature.

Edited May 10, 2009 by benny

Renegade · May 11, 2009

- According to you, the poor tried to please the University of Toronto.

I have no idea who the poor are trying to please. Perhaps they are trying to please themselves. Responses cannot be taken at face-value without understanding context of verification.

- According to me, most conservatives don't choose to die during a revolution.

What does that have to do with anything or how do you even know that this is true?

Your contention is that the poor do without food to give their children a chance to be revolutionaries to the point that they would die. Can you refer to even one case where someone has died of hunger to give their kid internet access as you contend?

- Social scientists may be expert witnesses before a court.

They have an opinion, as do I, as do you. Opinion is not fact and other social scientists have different opinions.

- Like everyone I'm gifted by a generous and wealthy nature.

Excellent. Then direct your generous and wealthy nature to helping the poor and let eveyone else do so voluntarily.

benny · May 11, 2009

I have no idea who the poor are trying to please. Perhaps they are trying to please themselves. Responses cannot be taken at face-value without understanding context of verification.
What does that have to do with anything or how do you even know that this is true?

Your contention is that the poor do without food to give their children a chance to be revolutionaries to the point that they would die. Can you refer to even one case where someone has died of hunger to give their kid internet access as you contend?

They have an opinion, as do I, as do you. Opinion is not fact and other social scientists have different opinions.

Excellent. Then direct your generous and wealthy nature to helping the poor and let eveyone else do so voluntarily.

- The University of Toronto doesn't hire staffs and dispense its Ph.D. diplomas without verification.

- Logically, if everyone chooses to lie and free ride at the first occasion, so are you.

- More than an opinion, they have an interpretation and to have an interpretation, one has to know the facts.

- The poor (in spirit) are really those who cannot see Jesus in hungry persons.

Renegade · May 11, 2009

- The University of Toronto doesn't hire staffs and dispense its Ph.D. diplomas without verification.

a Ph.D doesn't imply that they have some way of knowing whether or not the respondants are accurate in what they report.

- Logically, if everyone chooses to lie and free ride at the first occasion, so are you.

Of course. Any claims I or anyone else make are subject to verification.

- More than an opinion, they have an interpretation and to have an interpretation, one has to know the facts.

One would expect, but for example you have presented interpretation without supporting facts.

- The poor (in spirit) are really those who cannot see Jesus in hungry persons.

So you believe there is a religious connotation to this? What of those who are not religious.

benny · May 11, 2009

a Ph.D doesn't imply that they have some way of knowing whether or not the respondants are accurate in what they report.
Of course. Any claims I or anyone else make are subject to verification.

One would expect, but for example you have presented interpretation without supporting facts.

So you believe there is a religious connotation to this? What of those who are not religious.

-To know anything, we have to do studies.

- You are confusing falsification and verification.

- I'm acting on the basis of the study's findings.

- Converting lost souls is what a Christian do.

Renegade · May 11, 2009

-To know anything, we have to do studies.

Of course. So what we know is that, is that when asked people say they want more.

- You are confusing falsification and verification.

Am I? Without verification there is more opportunity for falsification.

- I'm acting on the basis of the study's findings.

As am I.

- Converting lost souls is what a Christian do.

That's exactly what missionaries did as the colonized. (ie impose their set of morals upon a population)

BTW, What do non-Christians do?

Edited May 11, 2009 by Renegade

benny · May 11, 2009

Of course. So what we know is that, is that when asked people say they want more.
Am I? Without verification there is more opportunity for falsification.

As am I.

That's exactly what missionaries did as the colonized. (ie impose their set of morals upon a population)

BTW, What do non-Christians do?

- Other studies have shown people want less fat.

- Falsification is proving something is false.

- You are only attempting to stall any action.

- Christians are opposing one moral with another.

Renegade · May 11, 2009

- Other studies have shown people want less fat.

People who earn more, have more choices in diet. People who earn less or rely on handouts have less choice despite what they want.

- Falsification is proving something is false.

Proving something is false is not necessary. It is simply enough to have not been proved true.

- You are only attempting to stall any action.

What action do you refer to? I don't seek to stall any action which I believe correct, in fact I encourage it, furthermore I am completely prepared to block any actions which I disagree with.

- Christians are opposing one moral with another.

Neither Chistians nor anyone else should impose their morals on anyone else.

benny · May 11, 2009

People who earn more, have more choices in diet. People who earn less or rely on handouts have less choice despite what they want.
Proving something is false is not necessary. It is simply enough to have not been proved true.

What action do you refer to? I don't seek to stall any action which I believe correct, in fact I encourage it, furthermore I am completely prepared to block any actions which I disagree with.

Neither Chistians nor anyone else should impose their morals on anyone else.

-It is morally very important to notice also that the reverse is also true.

-It is much more demanding to prove something true than to prove it false.

-Your belief is not supported by this piece of social science.

-Workers and their bosses bear arms more often than priests and monks.

Edited May 11, 2009 by benny

Renegade · May 11, 2009

-It is morally very important to notice also that the reserve is also true.

reserve? I assume you mean reverse? Yes agreed. If you agree that this is true, why do you bring your subjective morality as an issue?

-It is much more demanding to prove something true than to prove it false.

It depends on what you are trying to prove. In this case people claiming they are have gone hungry doesn't prove that they are inadequately funded for nutrition.

-Your belief is not supported by this piece of social science.

Belief of what? I have no idea what you are taking about?

-Workers and their bosses bear arms more often than priests and monks.

It is likely that religion and morality have been bigger drivers of conflict and violence even if priests and monks arent the ones bearing arms.

benny · May 11, 2009

reserve? I assume you mean reverse? Yes agreed. If you agree that this is true, why do you bring your subjective morality as an issue?
It depends on what you are trying to prove. In this case people claiming they are have gone hungry doesn't prove that they are inadequately funded for nutrition.

Belief of what? I have no idea what you are taking about?

It is likely that religion and morality have been bigger drivers of conflict and violence even if priests and monks arent the ones bearing arms.

-Without redistribution, life chances would become skewed in favor of those already lucky.

-To prove something false you need to find only one case; to prove something true, you need to test all possible cases.

-You discredit this study because it doesn’t fit your prejudices concerning the poor.

-Armies in the New World were opening the field for workers more than for priests.

Renegade · May 11, 2009

-Without redistribution, life chances would become skewed in favor of those already lucky.

So what? Life IS SKEWED to those who are lucky or skilled or capable. Isn't that the way nature intended?

-To prove something false you need to find only one case; to prove something true, you need to test all possible cases.

That would only be true if the statement covered all cases. I submit that in this case the survey doesn't claim it is conclusively defines the case for hunger in Toronto.

-You discredit this study because it doesn’t fit your prejudices concerning the poor.

You credit this study because it does fit your prejudices concerning the poor.

-Armies in the New World were opening the field for workers more than for priests.

It really depends on where you draw the line doesn't it. Conquest has been for wealth and power. Wealth and power have been intermingled with religion for much of history.

You don't address why since you agree that morality should not be imposed, why you raise morality at all?

benny · May 12, 2009

So what? Life IS SKEWED to those who are lucky or skilled or capable. Isn't that the way nature intended?
That would only be true if the statement covered all cases. I submit that in this case the survey doesn't claim it is conclusively defines the case for hunger in Toronto.

You credit this study because it does fit your prejudices concerning the poor.

It really depends on where you draw the line doesn't it. Conquest has been for wealth and power. Wealth and power have been intermingled with religion for much of history.

You don't address why since you agree that morality should not be imposed, why you raise morality at all?

-In his purely natural state, human is a very weak animal specie.

-To contribute to science, it is up to you to show not a single case of hunger exists in Toronto.

- Since I have a study to back my beliefs, they cannot be called prejudices any longer.

- Only those who kill to solve problems don't see the need to follow a line between good and bad.

Edited May 12, 2009 by benny

Renegade · May 12, 2009

-In his purely natural state, human is a very weak animal specie.

Apparently not as we have survived and thrived. If we have created conditions where we thrive, that is the new natural state.

-To contribute to science, it is up to you to show not a single case of hunger exists in Toronto.

I don't think I ever contended that there was NO hunger in Toronto. What I contend is that the basic welfare payment is sufficent to meet nutritional needs, and to do that all anyone would need to show is that there is at least one person on welfare who was not malnourished.

- Since I have a study to back my beliefs, they cannot be called prejudices any longer.

Sure they can, since you seem to read a lot more into the study than is reported. For example you extrroplate that people may be going hungry while providing internet service to their kids to secure a better future for their kids. This is pure speculation as you don't know if they have kids, and you don't know if what they are doing is surfing porn on the internet. Your prejudices lead you to make excuses to defend resuts which support your prejudices.

- Only those who kill to solve problems don't see the need to follow a line between good and bad.

The question is not whether people follow a line between good and bad. The question is that line is purely subjective and why should one persons interpretation of the line be imposed upon another?