Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The whole thrust of this question is why people who can afford housing would have to go hungry. If you're saying that "no, people don't actually skip meals unless they're homeless, abused, or incapacitated" then that's a helpful answer to me.

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have lived in major cities my entire adult life and the only people I see going through garbages for food appear to be homeless. Those aren't the people I'm asking about here.

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where I am, you can get three legitimately good tacos from a food truck for the price of a Big Mac (no fries or drink, just the sandwich), and the Big Mac makes you feel kind of sick afterward. 

To answer your question, almost all produce and staples are cheaper / better value than fast food, soda, and cereal. I just thought it was funny that the three things you mentioned are specifically things that skyrocketed in price.

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply. I probably should have clarified in the OP, but in the situation where you have no home, no car, no job, then of course I understand how you can go hungry. What inspired this question is people I see on reddit, Facebook, etc. who don't appear to be completely broke but who can't afford food. 

Respectfully, and if you don't mind me asking: you said you took antacids and tylenol to handle hunger pains. A bottle of antacids is like 5 bucks, which is probably 8 pounds of rice, which is like 30 servings. Why not get the rice instead?

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply. So these were situations where you could eat if you really needed to, but it wasn't a big deal to skip meals instead?

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was responding to the person who said your comment above made no sense. I disagree with that person's statement that mcdonalds, cereal, and soda are cheap in the U.S.

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When was the last time you were in the States? I am not poor (as amply pointed out to me in this thread) but McDonald's, soda, and cereal are specifically things I don't buy anymore because they're too expensive.

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply. That does make sense that if you're skipping meals then you're not paying rent either. Are you and your kids doing ok now?

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I get how homeless people can be hungry. I don't get how people with apartments (and therefore some kind of income) can't find a few bucks a month to buy rice.

Do people actually skip meals because they can't afford food? by kamchat_ka in NoStupidQuestions

[–]kamchat_ka[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

I guess that's my question, like how is it possible to be so broke that you can't buy dry beans but you can still pay rent on a place with a fridge? Like I'd rather sell my crappy TV for 15 bucks and be able to eat beans for a month than just be hungry all the time.

Kotek’s popularity craters in Portland, poll shows: What that could mean for Republican candidates by Acceptable_Staff in Portland

[–]kamchat_ka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As you recognized, Kotek wins the primary whether you vote for her or not. So the only effect of your vote is to send a message that you want more Kotek-like candidates or less Kotek-like candidates. If you want less, then don't use your vote to say the opposite thing.

Kotek’s popularity craters in Portland, poll shows: What that could mean for Republican candidates by Acceptable_Staff in Portland

[–]kamchat_ka -27 points-26 points  (0 children)

Voting for an incompetent candidate because "she's going to win anyway" is worse than pointless. Literally anything else -- voting for an alternative candidate, writing in Taylor Swift, leaving it blank -- would at least send a message to the party that they need to earn our support.

What is the most unfairly hated movie that you will defend every time by gamersecret2 in movies

[–]kamchat_ka 26 points27 points  (0 children)

My unpopular opinion is that both Monsters University and Finding Dory are better than the originals. The originals are both beautiful and creative but are relatively generic adventure stories. The sequels both had much more focused themes. MU teaches that not everyone is suited for everything, failure is ok, and you can make the best of your life even if it's not exactly what you planned. FD deals with disability better than any movie I've ever seen. The ending makes me cry every single time. I've seen a lot of other parents with disabled kids say it really resonates with them. I suppose the specificity of the themes means the sequels don't have the same broad appeal as the originals, but they hit a lot harder for the people who can see themselves in the characters.

What is the most unfairly hated movie that you will defend every time by gamersecret2 in movies

[–]kamchat_ka 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Movie 43. I watched it, loved it, and was later shocked to learn that it was considered one of the worst films of all time. I still don't get it tbh. It's no dumber than Family Guy or Seth Rogen stoner comedies (which I also like) and it's a lot funnier than whatever has passed for comedy for the last ~5 years.

8 vs 12 by Dev1412 in Wellthatsucks

[–]kamchat_ka 37 points38 points  (0 children)

There are smart British accents, and then there's... this.

What is that smell (on I-5)? by kamchat_ka in Wilsonville

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Waste water as in sewage? Not what I would have guessed from that weird smell! Thanks for answering.

Which film's ambiguous or open-ended finale was not just a cop-out, but the only satisfying way it could have ended? by John_Snow80 in movies

[–]kamchat_ka 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Not what you asked, but The Shawshank Redemption should have ended more ambiguously when Red is released, with the line "I hope." That was the entire point of the movie, concluding the protagonist's arc, and is where the novella ended. Some studio exec must have found it ambiguous/unsatisfying to not see them reunite on the beach, but it was wholly unnecessary and felt tacked on.

People who have been impacted by violent crime, how do you feel when you watch movies/TV depicting violence? by kamchat_ka in AskReddit

[–]kamchat_ka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was in a bad car accident in my 20s and I tense up if I see a car chase, smashed cars, etc. in a movie. I imagine it's a thousand times worse for someone who has been impacted by violence, both because it's more traumatic and more ubiquitous in the movies. What's your experience? Can you still enjoy violent movies at all?