Real Issues

[bad_teammate 13115]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

I'd prefer to keep making a lot of money and not be shot in a basement.

Hell, same.

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

5 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

This would appear to be the right way to go - figure out what works to solve the problem. It appears that often the folks who bring up the "they'll just buy drugs with the money" argument are just using it as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway: that is, nothing. If not, a try-it-and-see approach would seem to be the best response; this country used to be known for finding solutions to problems, after all.

San Fran is up to $241 million a year in homeless services and the population has only increased.  Endlessly throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

Are there more homeless from other areas coming for the services?  Or are the increases "home grown"?

[G650 13849]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Hell, same.

See, common ground has been found. Good thread @pepper brooks

[UTDD 362]

5 minutes ago, G650 said:

Personally I think Germany does it best. It's private healthcare, and insurance, and it's regulated as a public utility where rates are set. We regulate our electric company, but not our healthcare? Pretty absurd.

 

I do not want the NHS under any circumstance.

 

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a bigger free market guy than me. I'm the most classic of classical liberals, but what I see is that we need to put a hard floor to catch those at the bottom at a reasonable standard of living. We have plenty of money to do it, we just blow it on stupid shit regularly. And the masses are going to literally revolt if we don't. Nobody is just going to sit around and die, they are going to fight back.

I'm definitely open to this type of proposal/solution versus what we have now, and I think people should really in their mind try to separate healthcare as a separate classification from typical markets.

[G650 13849]

2 minutes ago, UTDD said:

I'm definitely open to this type of proposal/solution versus what we have now, and I think people should really in their mind try to separate healthcare as a separate classification from typical markets.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a lot more of a public service than a consumer good anyway.

[jimmyjazz 45429]

Big pharma would shit a brick, Capitol Hill would furrow its collective brow, and nothing would happen.

[David Dennison 18487]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

San Fran is up to $241 million a year in homeless services and the population has only increased.  Endlessly throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

Are there more homeless from other areas coming for the services?  Or are the increases "home grown"?

How many checks has San Francisco cut for each homeless person?

 

[Mole 4318]

I have a friend who was a drunk wandering the streets in his 20s when he found Jesus. He got sober, went to college, and eventually started an addiction/homeless ministry.

Twenty years later he houses and feeds about 50 people everyday year round. They work on putting structure into their lives and learning how to become a productive member of society. There's a pretty conservative religious angle to his ministry that would probably upset about half of this board but he's the one willing to spend his life easing the suffering of others.

There is nothing wrong with a political solution, but motivated individuals can impact thousands over their lifetime. When government overreach adds to this problem and hinders individual compassion in favor of pet partisan issues (this is truly a both sides situation), we are favoring thinking the right thoughts or our greed over easing human suffering.

On a more positive note, one person can actually impact thousands.

[David Dennison 18487]

4 minutes ago, Mole said:

I have a friend who was a drunk wandering the streets in his 20s when he found Jesus. He got sober, went to college, and eventually started an addiction/homeless ministry.

Twenty years later he houses and feeds about 50 people everyday year round. They work on putting structure into their lives and learning how to become a productive member of society. There's a pretty conservative religious angle to his ministry that would probably upset about half of this board but he's the one willing to spend his life easing the suffering of others.

There is nothing wrong with a political solution, but motivated individuals can impact thousands over their lifetime. When government overreach adds to this problem and hinders individual compassion in favor of pet partisan issues (this is truly a both sides situation), we are favoring thinking the right thoughts or our greed over easing human suffering.

On a more positive note, one person can actually impact thousands.

This is absolutely true and your friend is a saint. Unfortunately, the problem of poverty in America is so widespread that motivated individuals and charitable organizations don't come anywhere close to meeting the need. I wish this was not the case, but it's the reality on the ground.

[Bat Guano 359]

22 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

San Fran is up to $241 million a year in homeless services and the population has only increased.  Endlessly throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

Are there more homeless from other areas coming for the services?  Or are the increases "home grown"?

Not sure what your point is. Is San Fran trying different approaches to see what works best? Are you saying it's a national problem, not a local one? That's obviously true. Maybe we could try different approaches in different areas and find an optimum solution. Or have you just decided that nothing we do is going to work, so we might as well give up?

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

3 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Not sure what your point is. Is San Fran trying different approaches to see what works best? Are you saying it's a national problem, not a local one? That's obviously true. Maybe we could try different approaches in different areas and find an optimum solution. Or have you just decided that nothing we do is going to work, so we might as well give up?

Of course not. Just pointing out staggering amounts of money are not reducing the problem there. They are calling for the same things. Audits and results. See what is working and what is wasteful. 

I beileve as was stated above it will take life intervention and not just cash to put people on a path for sustainability. 

Its not an either or 

[jimmyjazz 45429]

There is no doubt that wholesale improvement in an individual's life will probably only come with some kind of action -- rehab, counseling, medical/psychiatric care, whatever it is, but the acute issues always include a need for sustenance.  "Oh well, he starved to death before we found help" is kind of a copout.

[Brisketexan 104228]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Of course not. Just pointing out staggering amounts of money are not reducing the problem there. They are calling for the same things. Audits and results. See what is working and what is wasteful. 

I beileve as was stated above it will take life intervention and not just cash to put people on a path for sustainability. 

Its not an either or 

Also ignoring the complexity.  A huge percentage of the "homeless" problem is directly related to mental illness and/or addiction (and to complicate it even more, those factors have a very high rate of intersection).

As anyone who has ever dealt with an addict, or someone truly mentally ill, any path that simply says "hey, it's up to them to decide to get better" is not going to get many people off the streets.

Mental illness.  Addiction.  History of abuse.  Underemployment/unemployment.  Falling behind on education (never got a diploma/GED).  And a dozen other things.  ALL of them are factors in homelessness.  It's a multi-faceted problem.  It will require a multi-faceted approach to solving it (note that I don't say "solution," because that implies there's one catch-all -- there ain't).

Any ONE approach is sure to fail -- just throw money at it, without discipline or strategy?  Sure, that will likely fail.  Tell folks "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps!" -- that's gonna fail.

But, that will likely continue to be the dueling approaches, because we don't do creative/collaborative/common sense any more.  

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

 

I agree with most of your post re:implementation, but this is incorrect. We could feed the world without even breaking a sweat.

*PC Trigger Warning

But for how long?

the 3rd world countries reproduce at an exponential rate compared to 1st world countries. 

While we may have the resources today, at the current rate it won’t be for long. 

A hard question for the globe. Would giving birth control in addition to food be more effective in curbing world hunger and poverty?

They can’t sustain their current population and grow faster than the populations needed to support them. 

[David Dennison 18487]

13 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

*PC Trigger Warning

But for how long?

the 3rd world countries reproduce at an exponential rate compared to 1st world countries. 

While we may have the resources today, at the current rate it won’t be for long. 

A hard question for the globe. Would giving birth control in addition to food be more effective in curbing world hunger and poverty?

They can’t sustain their current population and grow faster than the populations needed to support them. 

And people wonder what fuels terrorism.

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

Just now, David Dennison said:

And people wonder what fuels terrorism.

Poverty, Hunger and over population?

seem like easy targets for extremism. 

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

Poverty, Hunger and over population?

seem like easy targets for extremism. 

Sleep tight.

[jimmyjazz 45429]

Uhhh . . . the world's population is definitely increasing, but it's more a result of reduced death rates than increased birth rates.  Birth rates are dropping across all nationalized income demographics.

Africa's fertility rates are currently down to ~ 1.9X the world average, and will be roughly average by the end of the century.

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Uhhh . . . the world's population is definitely increasing, but it's more a result of reduced death rates than increased birth rates.  Birth rates are dropping across all nationalized income demographics.

Africa's fertility rates are currently down to ~ 1.9X the world average, and will be roughly average by the end of the century.

But those brown people breed like rabbits.

Some racist asshole just said so.

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

sigh. Never change 

 

. Doesnt matter what color. Talking about the economics of it. 

Immigration video but same thought process

 

[David Dennison 18487]

Wow.

[jimmyjazz 45429]

Crimony.

As of 2016, the worldwide birth rate had dropped 15.9% since 2000.  The death rate had dropped 13.3% in that same timeframe.

BOTH are declining.  Until fewer people are born than die in a given year, population will grow.  It's a process that's slowly heading towards equilibrium, but predicting that exact year when population peaks is a fool's errand.  It will probably happen within 100 years, and maybe within 50 years or so.

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

It’s a theoretical question. What is the answer?  Is it not an issue at all?

Mass migration? China’s one child policy?

(*birth control can be as simple as education and initiative- not mass murder)

Do those countries have a path to independent sustainability for their growing populations?  Does the world need to help them focus on this path of sustainability?

i don’t know the answers, but don’t see how these won’t be a problem in the future. 

[David Dennison 18487]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

It’s a theoretical question. What is the answer?  Is it not an issue at all?

Mass migration? China’s one child policy?

(*birth control can be as simple as education and initiative- not mass murder)

Do those countries have a path to independent sustainability for their growing populations?  Does the world need to help them focus on this path of sustainability?

i don’t know the answers, but don’t see how these won’t be a problem in the future. 

If you wan to talk about feeding the world, fine, let's talk about that.

But the video you posted above is a six minute straw man when it comes to immigration to the United States. No one is arguing that immigration to the US will do a thing to alleviate global poverty. Most arguments supporting immigration to the United States point out that it has a net positive effect for the United States economy. 

I encourage everyone to watch it so they can see a perfect example of a straw man argument. He does a good job, I'll give him that much. Lots of head shaking and furrowed brows. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by David Dennison

[jimmyjazz 45429]

I would say rampant 3rd world poverty is a huge problem, and it's only exacerbated by various combinations of totalitarian governments, civil war, drought, famine, and yes, population growth.  I suspect a great deal could be done without even considering the latter, although it shouldn't be "off the table" (within reason).

[G650 13849]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

It’s a theoretical question. What is the answer?  Is it not an issue at all?

Mass migration? China’s one child policy?

(*birth control can be as simple as education and initiative- not mass murder)

Do those countries have a path to independent sustainability for their growing populations?  Does the world need to help them focus on this path of sustainability?

i don’t know the answers, but don’t see how these won’t be a problem in the future. 

Our ability to produce food is exponentially higher than the rate of population increase globally. That's really a non factor. At some point very soon a ton of the food is going to be artificial even in first world countries.

[G650 13849]

Somewhat of an aside, the whole notion of nations is going to be obsolete very soon. And this isn't some weird ass utopian thing either, but rather the very real circumstance that we are going to have people living on Mars in the very near future, probably twenty years or so. What are you going to do then, support "planetist" policies, say "hell with those Mars people, I'm an Earthican"?

 

Clearly the entire concept of the nation state is laughable when its put in perspective. The earth can't hold us exclusively very much longer, we are going to have to branch out if we want to keep going as a species, and random demarcations here are going to be reduced if not evaporated.

 

There's obviously a whole host of geo political realities that go along with this. We cant just say 'lol no borders guyz' tomorrow and have a free for all. But the exporting of U.S./Anglo governing principles with the object of global hegemony has always been the best path to this end, along with the unparalleled rise in living conditions brought to the globe by free markets. Even China is capitalist, the attendant raising of living standards is what keeps the populace docile there. The key, to tie it back into this thread, is to have a mechanism to catch those who fall, and not destroy the fucking planet with our ignorance and/or excesses. 

[Pancho 44183]

7 hours ago, pepper brooks said:

I know this is likely to turn political even though it is not really meant to be a political post.  I do believe we as voters need to find some common ground on real issues we can actually solve in a bi-partisan way.  The issue I see is one where I have donated time and money.  It's a simple one and one I believe can be solved, and one where both sides could easily find common ground.  Hunger.  As I was walking down Smith Street yesterday in downtown Houston to pick up my lunch I see a very gaunt man near a bus stop start digging in the garbage.  He pulls out a discarded piece of pizza and starts eating it.  This absolutely hurt my soul.  The man appeared to be homeless, obviously hungry, very dirty.  I asked him to wait where he was, consider putting that pizza back where he found it, and I would return in a few minutes with lunch.  I picked up my lunch and had them make a few sandwiches.  Luckily the man was there when I returned.  I just cannot wrap my head around how we let shit like this be a continuing problem in America.  We waste so much money on so much shit it's incalculable.  How is it we cannot find a way to fund shelters with some basic care and food.  That's rhetorical, we don't need your snarky answers from the left about the military industrial complex, nor from the right about how we spend trillions on handouts already.  I get it.  Both of those things are true.  We have to find a way to fix this.  No one in this country should go hungry.  Ever.  I get some may be beyond help to some degree.  My guess is this man probably had some form of mental issue that possibly doesn't allow him to function in a way where he can get help at some of the places it is offered. 

 

What can we do?  I know this isn't an issue that gets as much attention as it should because it's one where people can generally agree.  If it isn't an issue that is going to divide us the news, nor politicians are going to put much effort into it.  Anyone have any ideas?  ANyone ever had much luck lobbying their representatives on this?  what about at local levels?  I feel like I can devote a bit more time and energy to this cause.  Anyone with any insight into how to go about it, I'm all ears.  I know this get more attention as we enter the holidays, and there will be some nice news stories about people at foodbank kitchens serving meals.  I've done that.  It's nice and all, but that is not getting it done.  We need to think "bigger".

A.) We've never gotten along (politically) on these message boards. 

B.) This really is a serious problem.  I work in higher education, and there are so many students who are going hungry and they don't know what to do.  A professor at Temple started #RealCollege a few years ago and it has gained steam in higher ed causing professors to tell their stories of students who go home with nothing to eat every night.  Some students can't even afford meal plans at 4-year institutions.  Sure, a great majority of these stories are from community colleges (I have a few myself), but what was shocking was the amount of students who attend places like Princeton, Stanford, Wisconsin, and yes even UT who were going hungry because they couldn't afford food. 

You're starting to see a long of higher ed institutions create Food Pantries for students or have an alliance with a food bank.  Some institutions have even started to give out "Food Scholarships" to their students. 

It's no secret that being hungry while in class because you can't afford food has a negative impact on your success in the classroom.  What's even more frustrating is this is a major issues that colleges and universities (both 2-year and 4-year) want to help with and feel it's their duty to help with yet most states are continuously cutting budgets in education.  So thinking outside the box to get this done has become the norm. 

On my campus in nawf Houston, we've been working for at least 2 years on creating a Food Pantry.  I thought it would have been open by now, but there's so much approval needed that it keeps getting put on the back burner. 

I say this because yes, we've had students who dropped out and were living on the street still struggling and hungry. 

[Brisketexan 104228]

If someone is REALLY concerned about the birth rate in poorer countries, you know what a SMART person would do? He’d look at the #1 factor that leads to lower birth rates. Japan, Europe, the US, all have low birth rates. What do they have in common? Developed and prosperous economies.

Want to make sure the world isn’t overrun with 10 million kids from the Republic of Poor? Then push for a global economic model that turns it into the Republic of Middle Class.

We did that last century in Europe, for example, and what did it get us? Peace. Prosperity in Europe. A prosperous trading partner that enriched the US, too.

Gosh, it’s amazing. When we employ mutually beneficial policies....we mutually benefit.

See the post above. I’m a globalist. I say it loud and proud. Because I see the writing on the wall, and see the path to a prosperous future. I expect that my kids might end up living in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, the US, etc. working and moving relatively freely among them. And maybe add some other countries to that. If the opportunities are in Lagos, then maybe they go there.

The world has been becoming more globalist since 1492, for better or worse. But plenty of it has been “for better,” and if we purposefully work for it to be that way, we can build that side of the ledger.

That kid being born in the Republic of Poor isn’t a leech on the planet. He’s the future grandfather of the boy who’s gonna marry your granddaughter. And that will be a day to celebrate.

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

US Population Growth Rate = .7% (2016)

 

 

Top Ten Countries with highest hunger rate and their percentage population growth rate. 

 

1. Haiti 1.3%

2. Zambia 3%

3. Yemen 2.4%

4. Ethiopia 2.5%

5. Chad 3.2%

6. Sudan 2.4%

7. Comoros 2.3%

8. Timor-Leste 2.2%

9. Eritrea 1.9%

10.Burundi 3.1%

 

Source Google

[Guest]

What are you going to do then, support "planetist" policies, say "hell with those Mars people, I'm an Earthican"?

It's like you don't even know human beings.

[G650 13849]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If someone is REALLY concerned about the birth rate in poorer countries, you know what a SMART person would do? He’d look at the #1 factor that leads to lower birth rates. Japan, Europe, the US, all have low birth rates. What do they have in common? Developed and prosperous economies.

Want to make sure the world isn’t overrun with 10 million kids from the Republic of Poor? Then push for a global economic model that turns it into the Republic of Middle Class.

We did that last century in Europe, for example, and what did it get us? Peace. Prosperity in Europe. A prosperous trading partner that enriched the US, too.

Gosh, it’s amazing. When we employ mutually beneficial policies....we mutually benefit.

See the post above. I’m a globalist. I say it loud and proud. Because I see the writing on the wall, and see the path to a prosperous future. I expect that my kids might end up living in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, the US, etc. working and moving relatively freely among them. And maybe add some other countries to that. If the opportunities are in Lagos, then maybe they go there.

The world has been becoming more globalist since 1492, for better or worse. But plenty of it has been “for better,” and if we purposefully work for it to be that way, we can build that side of the ledger.

That kid being born in the Republic of Poor isn’t a leech on the planet. He’s the future grandfather of the boy who’s gonna marry your granddaughter. And that will be a day to celebrate.

I'm infinity billion percent globalist.

[David Dennison 18487]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

US Population Growth Rate = .7% (2016)

 

 

Top Ten Countries with highest hunger rate and their percentage population growth rate. 

 

1. Haiti 1.3%

2. Zambia 3%

3. Yemen 2.4%

4. Ethiopia 2.5%

5. Chad 3.2%

6. Sudan 2.4%

7. Comoros 2.3%

8. Timor-Leste 2.2%

9. Eritrea 1.9%

10.Burundi 3.1%

 

Source Google

Nine out of ten are former European colonies.

What a coincidence.

[RomaVicta 29704]

58 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

sigh. Never change 

 

. Doesnt matter what color. Talking about the economics of it. 

Immigration video but same thought process

 

I just dropped into this page. Are a lot of people arguing the US should use immigration to diminish world poverty? I've never heard that rationale before. I only got about half way through this presentation because it seems to start with a false premise. I tuned out where he talked about the "elites" of the US proposing this. 

Maybe I only have friends in low places. The whole presentation seems sort of dumb.

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

For reference. 

US mortality rate 8.4 deaths per 1000 people

Haiti: Mortality rate 7.6 deaths per 1000 people

*info per CDC and google

[relapse98 634]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Several years ago, I talked to Drayton McLane about donating leftover food from MMP concessions and suites to Star or Hope.  Which is right down the street.  He said he would love to.  But the city law prohibits it.  

Someone needs to tell
Second Servings of Houston, then. They appear to be a bunch of lawbreakers.

 

[relapse98 634]

7 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Someone needs to tell Second Servings of Houston, then. They appear to be a bunch of lawbreakers

Quoting myself since I waited too long to edit.

Its entirely possible Drayton really wanted to do something and there was a city law in place preventing that, but I can't find any evidence. It may be that the Astro's organization was not interested in the steps required to maintain food at the proper temperatures or to cool it down so that it could actually be used. Also - food in the suites might be considered 'already served' since it was passed from the concessionaire to the suite owner and that food may not be able to be sold.

[ChickenSandwich 9795]

My guess is food safety. If you couldn’t legally serve to your audience you can’t give away. (“Served food”)

In terms of food safety, with some exceptions for packaged foods and shifting guidelines around staffed buffets, once the food leaves the food preparation area and hits the dining room, it needs to be eaten or discarded.

 

https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/advice-guy/can-restaurants-donate-leftover-food

anither example would be “pizza by the slice” per food handlers guidelines it is only good for consumption for 4 hours. After that it has to be thrown away (now composted)

Edited October 11, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[pyrohornIII 4783]

If you don't provide education and hope for a better life, then giving money out to those who feel they have no way out of their situation will most likely continue in that situation and only use the money for short term things. 

You give a person a reason to be proud and you give them hope, then you are on the right track.  

I can't find it right now, but there was a documentary about somewhere in the Northwest using large vacant tracts of urban blight to set up intensive vegetable gardening.  They hired a lot of homeless, sold organic goods to local eateries and markets.  It's a good watch, and a good program.  We need more of these.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

San Fran is up to $241 million a year in homeless services and the population has only increased.  Endlessly throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

Are there more homeless from other areas coming for the services?  Or are the increases "home grown"?

Yes and yes. When only a handful of places provide adequate homeless services, of course homeless people from uncaring communities migrate there. SF is tiny though. They need to get the rest of the area to help shoulder the burden. Especially Silicon Valley which is nearly entirely responsible for the high cost of living in the whole region, yet continues to behave as walled off suburban enclaves that can push poverty into other municipalities so it isnt their problem. SF tries to help. Palo Alto tries to shove poor people into SF.

Edited October 11, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Buzzrock 14859]

Sounds like a perfect project for an attorney to work on -- find the operative ordinance, draft an amendment, rally public support for it, and present it to the council.
Seriously, this is EXACTLY the kind of local-level change that is within relatively easy grasp of citizens to make happen.  Sometimes well-meaning (often old/archaic) laws have unintended consequences.  Those consequences can be addressed with reasonable fixes.  Working on just one issue like that might end up providing thousands of meals to hungry people.  Talk about a great ROI.

I greatly prefer this approach to “create a federal agency”.

And I think the climate is right for this sort of thing to catch on. Millenials love causes.

[Buzzrock 14859]

Time for Uncle Milt to drop some knowledge on you fools:

AKA I fucking hate agreeing with Dotard Dennison

[EMAWesome 101]

9 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

France has a food waste law that requires supermarkets to donate food rather than throw it away when it is too old to sell, but still edible.  Many restaurants in France also do this although I don't believe there is a law requiring them to do so.

One of the reasons we don't do this is the misguided belief that everyone will just wait and go around back instead of buying food at the front.  French grocers avoid this by having distributors take the food to shelter/food pantry locations.  However, french bakeries do give food away at the end of the day without damaging their business.  I don't see why Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks would be any different.

Also, NYC does have a shelter and prepared meal system like the OP suggests.  And even with the fact that its a magnet for the homeless/needy from other areas, it isn't particularly overstressed.  A couple of things keep the streets crowded though.  Shelters simply aren't equipped to handle intoxicated people so they don't allow them entry.  And nobody can forcibly shelter anyone, including the mentally ill, so people are free to choose the streets whether they are mentally competent or not.  This changes in the winter when cold weather does allow the city to go street to street and move people to shelters no matter their mental state. 

A quick google shows Houston has a few options for free lunch in or near downtown for those who choose to go there too.  Yet the man the OP met chose not to go there.  I'm all about making sure the apparatus is available to get everyone fed and have a roof over their head so they can get back on their feet.  I'm not quite sold on pushing people there against their will.

Suppose we adopted something like this here.  What happens when the inevitable lawsuits come after someone comes down with salmonella, listeria or some other kind of food poisoning from the donated food?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

37 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Suppose we adopted something like this here.  What happens when the inevitable lawsuits come after someone comes down with salmonella, listeria or some other kind of food poisoning from the donated food?

What happens when people come down with salmonella from any food?  Right, better to just let people starve to death. Perhaps they should be able to sue you for letting them starve instead. 

[Brisketexan 104228]

Suppose we adopted something like this here.  What happens when the inevitable lawsuits come after someone comes down with salmonella, listeria or some other kind of food poisoning from the donated food?

Step 1: draft the Law that allows for such food donations.
Step 2: add a provision that makes the donor immune to a negligence claim.

We have a crapload of laws limiting liability on the books. Wouldn’t even have to create new language. Next question.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

 

 

It's like you don't even know human beings.

This I agree with. From the second we put people on Mars, its pretty much guaranteed that Earth and Mars will go to war at some point.

[hayden_horn 11358]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

What happens when people come down with salmonella from any food?  Right, better to just let people starve to death. Perhaps they should be able to sue you for letting them starve instead. 

 

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Step 1: draft the Law that allows for such food donations.
Step 2: add a provision that makes the donor immune to a negligence claim.

We have a crapload of laws limiting liability on the books. Wouldn’t even have to create new language. Next question.

Problem is, the EU has much more stringent food quality laws than we do. Eat at a pub in the UK or Berlin. The chicken tastes like chicken. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

Problem is, the EU has much more stringent food quality laws than we do. Eat at a pub in the UK or Berlin. The chicken tastes like chicken. 

True, while not advised you could probably get away with eating raw chicken in France. Here, you'd be nearly guaranteed of being fucked. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26181]

True, while not advised you could probably get away with eating raw chicken in France. Here, you'd be nearly guaranteed of being fucked. 

 

True. However:

I’ve eaten steak tartare hundreds of times and the only time I ever got food poisoning from it was in Bourges, Centre-Val-de-Loire.

 

Basically wound up painting* the walls of my cousin’s bathroom for two days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*with diarrhea

[G650 13849]

7 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

This I agree with. From the second we put people on Mars, its pretty much guaranteed that Earth and Mars will go to war at some point.

Oh I dont disagree. I was pointing out how stupid it is.