GBAChef: What do you call being unable to cook?

[SG854]

Cave men cooked or cave women cooked? What percentage of people actually cooked? The second out of the cave, did they open their first Starbucks?



It's not a particularly high reward one either. I mean, it does great things to your self-worth, I guess?



Uh, I don't spend that long watching tv everyday. But, if they did, they'd have to give up watching tv to some extent to cook the food. Perhaps the biggest thing: the trade-off of one luxury for another. If you want to call that laziness, do I call it laziness every time you buy something premade by someone else?

Cave men discovered fire and cooked meat. Thats how our brains evolved to become bigger, and our jaw muscles weakened that let our brain size expand since we no longer needed strong jaw muscles with cooked food and tools to cut meat.

Getting fat from Burger King is worse on your self esteem and worth.

You play video games though.

 

[Enlapse]

I call it "having a boyfriend that cooks for me"
Nah, I made spaghetti once, extremely fucking salty... Never again.
Ohyeh, not to mention burnt meat once.

Well, at least you managed to finish them properly... Once, I tried to do some spaghetti and they ended burnt. For real. They were absoluely black, like if they stayed in fire for some time... Kind of sad, to be honest.

 

[kuwanger]

Cave men discovered fire and cooked meat. Thats how our brains evolved to become bigger, and our jaw muscles weakened that let our brain size expand since we no longer needed strong jaw muscles with cooked food and tools to cut meat.

Cave women discovered fire and cooked meat? The point is your argument is that people as a whole learned to cook food and passed that knowledge down. It speaks nothing of most individuals learning to cook food. People cooked. People hunted. People made flint spears. Specialization in a task almost exclusively isn't a new thing.

Getting fat from Burger King is worse on your self esteem and worth.

Good thing I rarely (as in maybe three times a year) eat from any sort of restaurant. Honestly, I couldn't afford to eat at any sort of restaurant to the point of becoming fat from it.

You play video games though.

Again, the question is probably the trade-off. So, my original hypothesis was wrong. Whether you call it laziness that people should choose to have more leisure at slightly higher expense in food is definitely your opinion. Definitely some foods are cheap when pre-prepared (relates to spoilage more than anything, I think) and packaged unless you're making mass quantities--I don't think I could readily make cheaper jelly beans.

I don't say this excuses people who say they're unable to cook because the ability to do something and having experience in it aren't inherently the same thing. Nor does the ability to cook necessarily mean to cook well. There are a ton of recipes to follow which is itself a curse because there's virtually no quality control except cook books, and they're a dime a dozen which clearly makes me have less faith in them.

I guess I should ask the obvious, how much of the food you eat is from scratch that you make yourself? Does that include raising the plants/animals? At what point is it laziness to "cheat"?

 

[DinohScene]

Well, at least you managed to finish them properly... Once, I tried to do some spaghetti and they ended burnt. For real. They were absoluely black, like if they stayed in fire for some time... Kind of sad, to be honest.

How did that happen!?
Spaghetti needs to be boiled...

 

[SG854]

Cave women discovered fire and cooked meat? The point is your argument is that people as a whole learned to cook food and passed that knowledge down. It speaks nothing of most individuals learning to cook food. People cooked. People hunted. People made flint spears. Specialization in a task almost exclusively isn't a new thing.



Good thing I rarely (as in maybe three times a year) eat from any sort of restaurant. Honestly, I couldn't afford to eat at any sort of restaurant to the point of becoming fat from it.



Again, the question is probably the trade-off. So, my original hypothesis was wrong. Whether you call it laziness that people should choose to have more leisure at slightly higher expense in food is definitely your opinion. Definitely some foods are cheap when pre-prepared (relates to spoilage more than anything, I think) and packaged unless you're making mass quantities--I don't think I could readily make cheaper jelly beans.

I don't say this excuses people who say they're unable to cook because the ability to do something and having experience in it aren't inherently the same thing. Nor does the ability to cook necessarily mean to cook well. There are a ton of recipes to follow which is itself a curse because there's virtually no quality control except cook books, and they're a dime a dozen which clearly makes me have less faith in them.

I guess I should ask the obvious, how much of the food you eat is from scratch that you make yourself? Does that include raising the plants/animals? At what point is it laziness to "cheat"?

Cave women, cave man, they both live in the same cave. But they cooked.

That makes the laziness even worse since you don't have to raise your own cattle to slaughter. Just walk to a nearby supermarket, buy, and cook. An easy task.
You don't have to buy organic, many non organic foods from market is better than fast food.

If they want to eat unhealthy and get fat for a little more video game playing time then thats their problem.
And are these people loners or something? Don't they have others that can help out with cooking. Is their family/friends lazy and unhelpful.

 

[kuwanger]

And are these people loners or something? Don't they have others that can help out with cooking. Is their family/friends lazy and unhelpful.

I'm a loner (mostly). If anything, I'd argue that being a loner makes you more dependent on cooking yourself because you don't have all the other cave men/women to cook for you. Regardless, fatness and unhealthy has probably a lot more to do with general physical inactivity. As the numbers go, a lot of people in the US moved from manufacturing to service/retail jobs. All other things being equal, that alone could be enough to explain the shift in obesity in the US. I've no idea what the balance is like in other countries, though.

 

[SG854]

I'm a loner (mostly). If anything, I'd argue that being a loner makes you more dependent on cooking yourself because you don't have all the other cave men/women to cook for you. Regardless, fatness and unhealthy has probably a lot more to do with general physical inactivity. As the numbers go, a lot of people in the US moved from manufacturing to service/retail jobs. All other things being equal, that alone could be enough to explain the shift in obesity in the US. I've no idea what the balance is like in other countries, though.

They can always switch roles with partners or family. One day a person cooks, the other day another cooks. If someone really wanted to learn to cook they can. Its whether they put the effort into it.

The unhealthy eating and physical inactiveness, but people with higher incomes have less obesity though. They have the same level of inactiveness too. And many high income jobs uses more brain and less physical labor. Its the over abundance of food. And food becoming extremely cheap.... And laziness.

 

[HamBone41801]

I'm actually not allowed to cook. Once, when I was 6 or 7, I went in the kitchen on my own and decided to make my own lunch. Nobody is 100% sure of what I made, but it was yellow, had the consistency of maple syrup, and contained black beans. I remember it tasting pretty good.

 

[SG854]

I'm actually not allowed to cook. Once, when I was 6 or 7, I went in the kitchen on my own and decided to make my own lunch. Nobody is 100% sure of what I made, but it was yellow, had the consistency of maple syrup, and contained black beans. I remember it tasting pretty good.

Is it laziness thats preventing you from cooking food?

 

[HamBone41801]

Is it laziness thats preventing you from cooking food?

They don't trust me around knives and I'm afraid of the oven.

 

[chrisrlink]

it's called using a microwave oven if ya can't follow WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS i'm sorry but there's no hope for you.....then again i end blowing **** up even following them to a T

 

[SG854]

They don't trust me around knives and I'm afraid of the oven.

Jesus did you try to kill someone with a knife?
How old are you, there's 3 yr old chefs. How can they not trust you with knives.

An oven wont kill you if you don't go inside it. I don't even think you'll fit inside an oven.

 

[HamBone41801]

Jesus did you try to kill someone with a knife?
How old are you, there's 3 yr old chefs. How can they not trust you with knives.

An oven wont kill you if you don't go inside it. I don't even think you'll fit inside an oven.

ok yea that sounded bad. nah, I got a shaky hand and terrible hand-eye coordination. Also, I'm 17.

 

[kuwanger]

The unhealthy eating and physical inactiveness, but people with higher incomes have less obesity though. They have the same level of inactiveness too. And many high income jobs uses more brain and less physical labor. Its the over abundance of food. And food becoming extremely cheap.... And laziness.

So, why again is it that the poor are overly obese? Do you believe those with a high income job cook more, are less lazy, and/or eat healthier? The "over abundance of food" would apply to everyone. If anything people with higher incomes would be more capable of buying fast food regularly. Food itself may be cheap but preparation costs (and markup) make any sort of restaurant food more expensive to the point that it's unobtainable to be the chief calorie source for the poor. I'm fairly certain the issue may well be more that packaged foods have substantial salt/preservatives and then sugar to mask this in American foods, but I don't see why those with higher income would particularly avoid these foods.

Really, beyond this having gone very much off-topic, it seems like "laziness" is about all you can say. It's not that I don't see that as a factor. It's that it seems more a basis for condemnation of a group of people (in this case, the poor) without examining beyond it. Ie, it seems like you think the think the poor are fat and lazy, so you simply group "can't cook" in the list. Honestly, I don't know how what demographic of people most "can't cook" and if that correlates (let alone causes) obesity. It all seems supposition. But just like mine, it's pretty trivial to disprove which seems to fall on deaf ears. *sigh*

 

[JiveTheTurkey]

Do you guys cook and make a mess without worry or do you make sure you keep the whole place clean while cooking? I make a mess and then clean it up. Every time I try to keep it tidy and clean while cooking I always mess some of the food up.

 

[SG854]

ok yea that sounded bad. nah, I got a shaky hand and terrible hand-eye coordination. Also, I'm 17.

How do you play video games with bad hand eye coordination?
There's the Adjustable Hand Mandolin Slicers, and Machine Slicers, and Electric Meat Slicers that are safer. You can try those.

So, why again is it that the poor are overly obese? Do you believe those with a high income job cook more, are less lazy, and/or eat healthier? The "over abundance of food" would apply to everyone. If anything people with higher incomes would be more capable of buying fast food regularly. Food itself may be cheap but preparation costs (and markup) make any sort of restaurant food more expensive to the point that it's unobtainable to be the chief calorie source for the poor. I'm fairly certain the issue may well be more that packaged foods have substantial salt/preservatives and then sugar to mask this in American foods, but I don't see why those with higher income would particularly avoid these foods.

Really, beyond this having gone very much off-topic, it seems like "laziness" is about all you can say. It's not that I don't see that as a factor. It's that it seems more a basis for condemnation of a group of people (in this case, the poor) without examining beyond it. Ie, it seems like you think the think the poor are fat and lazy, so you simply group "can't cook" in the list. Honestly, I don't know how what demographic of people most "can't cook" and if that correlates (let alone causes) obesity. It all seems supposition. But just like mine, it's pretty trivial to disprove which seems to fall on deaf ears. *sigh*

High Income eat less. And more work more hours and more full time then low income. More Top in 5% work 50 or more weeks then bottom 20%.
If low income work too much and make to much money then they get less welfare benefits. They have more time to cook then high income. Thread about what do you call being unable to cook, and I call it laziness.

 

[HamBone41801]

How do you play video games with bad hand eye coordination?
There's the Adjustable Hand Mandolin Slicers, and Machine Slicers, and Electric Meat Slicers that are safer. You can try those.

by bad hand-eye coordination, I mean positioning my hand in 3d space. basically, I'm bad at this type of stuff, but video games are fine.

 

[kuwanger]

High Income eat less. And they work more hours and more full time then low income. Top 5% work 50 or more weeks then bottom 20%.
If low income work too much and make to much money then they get less welfare benefits.

I'm curious where you get your stats. Or how many people are getting welfare benefits*. Or really generally why you use 5% and 20% since the general wealth cutoff for poor could be extended to near 50% depending on just how you define poor. I mean, meaningful poor is mostly out in the US and most western civilizations because of said "welfare benefits"--that "over abundance" means people need not starve. The number of people actually working is only around the 50% mark, so I'm curious if that figures into things.

Well, whatever. It seems a lot more complicated than a single word.

* If you wish to include food stamps as well, I'd note the whole underemployed aspect of the poor is in part government policy and part company design. Government mandates certain benefits and conditions based upon number of hours worked. Companies refuse to hire people for over a set number of hours, requiring people to have "flexible" work hours at multiple jobs or to rely upon food stamps. I guess one could argue that's laziness, but it functions like a conspiracy to keep a lot of service jobs at the poverty level.

 

[SG854]

I'm curious where you get your stats. Or how many people are getting welfare benefits*. Or really generally why you use 5% and 20% since the general wealth cutoff for poor could be extended to near 50% depending on just how you define poor. I mean, meaningful poor is mostly out in the US and most western civilizations because of said "welfare benefits"--that "over abundance" means people need not starve. The number of people actually working is only around the 50% mark, so I'm curious if that figures into things.

Well, whatever. It seems a lot more complicated than a single word.

* If you wish to include food stamps as well, I'd note the whole underemployed aspect of the poor is in part government policy and part company design. Government mandates certain benefits and conditions based upon number of hours worked. Companies refuse to hire people for over a set number of hours, requiring people to have "flexible" work hours at multiple jobs or to rely upon food stamps. I guess one could argue that's laziness, but it functions like a conspiracy to keep a lot of service jobs at the poverty level.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-05.2010.html

 

[grey72]

Not much to add here except that OP's post made me hungry - for food and for the country.
Can't wait for vacation baby