And no we should not be concerned about other peoples emotions unless we personally care about those people. If it's your friend or family, or if you need them for some reason then perhaps you should care, but even then you have to draw the line somewhere. There is no way to live life without hurting peoples feelings.
If you hang a noose in front of the house of a black person, and it hurts their feelings, should you be charged and go to prison?
I think a much better question is, "Why are you (and lots of others, apparently) so interested in getting away with being a mean-spirited shit to people most likely to suffer real emotional hurt from it under the guise of 'freedom of speech'?"
Whatever happened to the notion that others' feelings ought to matter to us as much as our own?
What notion is that? I don't exist to protect the feelings of complete strangers just like I don't exist to protect the bank accounts of complete strangers. Your emotions are your property just like my emotions are mine.
And I don't think the laws should remove all personal responsibility or individuality just to prevent some sensitive people from committing suicide. Those people will always find a reason to commit suicide whether you are nice to them or not so what is the point?
I agree, Lori Drew is a psychopath. And because Lori Drew is a psychopath she deserves to be blacklisted. It's not the fact of what she did that causes people to hate her, it's the fact that she is not remorseful about what she did.
Most people if they bully a child and that child commits suicide, they will feel bad about it for the rest of their life, because they know just like you do that a child has not had the experience to know. It's the age difference here that makes it so wrong, 20 years difference is just ridiculous and I can't imagine a normal adult doing something like that.
On the other hand I don't feel much sympathy for adults who commit suicide and blame others for it. Adults are on the same experience level and are responsible for their own moods and emotions. It's not like a child who might not be old enough to understand responsibility, even if the child is supposed to be responsible, a child might not be mature enough to understand it. An adult should understand it.
If you have bad Karma, you go on the blacklist. You get put on the blacklist and thats the green light for anyone to victimize you. Lori Drew should be put on the blacklist, not because shes an asshole, or a bully, or even because she bullied a minor, but because she does not show remorse for what she did. Once on the blacklist, nobody will hire her anywhere, when burglars are looking for a house to rob they'll choose hers, when hackers are deciding whos computer to hack they'll choose hers, when con artists and predators decide who to prey on, they will choose her.
Being on the blacklist / having bad karma means nobody will feel any sympathy or compassion for you. If you go to prison and get raped in prison, nobody will care because you were a rapist.
You cannot talk a person into killing themselves if they don't already want to. You cannot talk a person into doing something they truly don't want to do.
What Lori Drew did is talk Megan into doing what she wanted to do. It's morally wrong but it should not be illegal. And also the new Missouri law is beyond ridiculous, it says that if you hurt anyones feelings who are under 18, you committed a crime. Let's be realistic, if you are in Missouri it's best that you don't talk to anyone under 18 on the internet because you can be sued more on the internet than if you hurt their feelings in person.
Ultimately the solutions they are coming up with are worse than the problem.
1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she:...
(3) Knowingly... causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making... any electronic communication; or
(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is... seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly... causes emotional distress to such other person; or...
(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to... cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be... emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
2. Harassment is a [class D felony if]...:
(1) Committed by a person twenty-one years of age or older against a person seventeen years of age or younger...
Basically Lori Drew is a typical asshole. She hurt a childs feelings, the child killed herself, and now people are angry and looking for laws to use against Lori Drew.
I don't think it should ever be a illegal to hurt someones feelings because then any minor you piss off can sue you.
1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she:...
(3) Knowingly... causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making... any electronic communication; or
(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is... seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly... causes emotional distress to such other person; or...
(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to... cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be... emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
2. Harassment is a [class D felony if]...:
(1) Committed by a person twenty-one years of age or older against a person seventeen years of age or younger...
That is the new law. And I think it's poorly written because it tries to claim a child is anyone under 18, which is completely ridiculous. Megan was 12 so I can understand, but if someone is 15 years old they should know better than to commit suicide over being insulted on the internet, even if its by an adult.
Also it means any child can claim something you said hurt their feelings and because it's so subjective then you are guilty until proven innocent.
But Harassment should be defined very specifically to mean that the minor said "leave me alone" or blocked the person, and the person continued to contact the individual. That is what harassment is. Just insulting a minor should never be illegal and if it is illegal, then we need to keep minor from Missouri off Slashdot so that none of us get sued if they commit suicide.
I favor using the technology to solve most of these issues, banning, blocking, ignore lists, and if all of that fails then use the law. The law should be the LAST resort.
No matter what you charge her with, she's not a murderer. She's a bad person, she's a heartless cruel person but she is not a murderer.
Prison probably wont change anything in this case because this is a unique case. The reason this case is unique is because the girl was 12 and this woman was in her 40s. If any new laws should be created it should be to ban under 13 from using social networking sites. Why on earth should kids even be on social networking sites?
I wouldn't mind if it were illegal to allow those under 13 to use the internet unsupervised. But to sue Lori Drew would be to blame the internet for Megans suicide, and that is not fair.This situation is an accident, and Lori Drew is a bad person who should have known better. She will never find a job again, she will be demonized for the rest of her life, and her reputation is ruined, that is worse than being in prison.
No matter what anyone says to you, if you decide to commit suicide it's your fault. You are the owner of your emotions, not anyone else. Nobody but you is responsible for how you feel, and if you don't like how someone is making you feel you can stop talking to them.
If you talk to someone and call them a douch bag and they go and commit suicide you are not responsible for their suicide, they are.
The only emotions you are responsible for is your own.
If what she did was criminal they could have charged her with harassment. It's not a crime to trick a minor or an adult over the internet, nor should it be a crime. Yes there was more to it than that, and those aspects could be a crime depending on the details of the case.
The fact that she used a fake profile is not and should not be a crime. The fact that she tricked the child might be immoral but it should not be a crime. It should only be a crime if the child asked to be left alone, over and over again, and this individual would not go away. Then it should be a crime.
But no I don't think it should be a crime to hurt a child or adults feelings over the internet. Being an asshole should not be a crime.
People who hate Lori Drew, wanted to form a lynch mob using the law and the courts.
This is wrong, it was the wrong tactic from the beginning and I said that many months ago. I'm not surprised that it failed, anyone who knows the law at all knew it wouldn't work.
But assume somehow the precedent was set, and now if you hurt a powerful persons feelings they can form a lynch mob and put you in prison? I'm sure many people would like that, but that is not justice.
1." purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet)"
I disagree with this. Emotions cannot be measured or quantified. How do you measure emotional damages to another person? How do we even know other people have emotions, do we have some way to scan their brain to know what they are feeling? That idea is completely stupid from a legal point of view, but from a moral point of view I can see why its wrong to bully children.
2. "a child she knows to have psychologically problems"
How do you know this?
3. "over an extended period of time"
There are already laws to address this. It's called harassment.
4. "directly suggesting suicide after manipulating, setting up, and torturing this child"
While I believe it's sad that a child had to die, the only one to blame for a suicide is the individual who committed it. You can never blame anyone else for how you feel or what you do in response. You have to accept and own your own emotions. In this case I have sympathy because it's a child involved, but if it were an adult I would not have sympathy about this.
5. "This does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world. No, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say."
Nobody has a responsibility to be nice to you. People can say whatever they want. If you try and censor what people can say you only make the matter worse. Let people express themselves in text on the internet rather than violently.
Free speech is too important to throw it away over feelings being hurt. Free speech isn't about feelings, emotions, or psychology. It serves a vital practical purpose.
If someone harasses you then you can charge them with harassment, there are laws in place already. If someone stalks you then get a restraining order. But if someone hurts your feelings, learn to own your emotions or stop talking to people who hurt your feelings.
Having lived through an abused childhood, I have near zero sympathy for kids who are such losers that they can't face life's challenges. Not quite zero, but near it. This girl who committed suicide because some boy she had never met apparently turned on her isn't very far up the food chain from the idiots who choose to "go out in a blaze of glory" while shooting up their school. She was weak and unstable, and she chose to suicide. Her lack of a support group contributed, yes, but the fact remains, she failed.
I've seen someone's sig - "Instead of child proofing the world, let's world proof the child!" Damned good advice - I just can't remember where I've seen the sig.
I see your point and I understand your argument. This is what people use to ban violent video games as well. I don't think violent video games should be banned just because a few kids shoot up their schools. I don't think the internet should be ruined because a few kids commit suicide. And I also don't think the internet should be ruined because there are pedophiles on the net.
I think liberty must be preserved for the responsible. Anything which takes away liberty from responsible citizens to protect the children, is a political trick. We should enhance parental responsibility and control over the media that their children access, and if a parent buys a kid violent video games and the kid goes and shoots up their school, the parents should take responsibility for buying the game. You shouldn't try to ban the game.
So what should we do? We cannot just decide to continue to let people be victims of bullying, so perhaps we should teach kids how to deal with the internet before they use it? A mandatory class in school might help.
The only reason this case was pumped up was for political reasons. Bullies existed offline when I was growing up, and I had to deal with child and adult bullies. So how is this new? Because it's on the internet?
12 year olds shouldn't be on social networking sites in the first place. If they aren't old enough to distinguish reality from the internet, they should not be online. The same with violent movies and video games which also might cause suicides. Lori Drew was what we'd consider a bad person, and a bully, but alternatively you can turn the internet off, disconnect, block, ignore list, all which work better than suing.
In this case the girl is dead so it's too late, and the stuff Drew said was just wrong to say to a 12 year old, but since we cannot rid the world or the internet of assholes, and we have too many assholes to sue each one of them, we have to find a better solution. Maybe create an internet for kids only, or put some sorta age limits on social networking sites.
if you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise. But don't immediately starve yourself, try fasting for a few months and record how much weight you lose in that time. Exercise first thing in the morning, that will boost the metabolism and then wait until dark to have dinner and or snacks. It's that simple.
If you like variety its going to be more expensive, if you don't mind eating beans every single day and fish every single day, it's cheap. In Japan they eat rice every single day with fish and thats sushi, and it's cheap, but if you have only sushi its also very boring.
1. Low glycemic index slow digesting carbs. 2. Protein. 3. Fat 4. A multivitamin.
So for carbs you can have a staple, beans, rice, anything but bread and sugar.
For protein go with fish or/and eggs, avoid mammals.
For fat go with polyunsaturated, such as olive oil, fish oil, flax seed, and in general sunflowerseeds are a good source of fat with a tradeoff of being high fiber.
The last tip is to eat the same 3 meals every day, every month, with as little variation as possible. After a few months of this you'll get tired of the taste but at the same time your body will have learned to efficiently burn off the kinds of foods you are eating. The body actually has evolved so that it burns off whatever you eat a lot of, so if you eat a lot of chips it gets good at burning chips, but if you eat a lot of high fat meats it gets good at burning that. The point is to not switch between high sugar, and high fat, in the same week or same day, if you have a coke with your burger and fries it will cause your body to not burn any of them efficiently but if you just have the burger, or just the fries, or just the coke, and you have that every day, the body will learn to burn that off efficiently. This is one reason why some people don't get fat, this is also why body builders don't eat with much variety and are ripped. Variety is the killer.
I used to think the same way because I'm still poor. I currently spend $150 a month on food, this is considered to be cheap. I eat sardines, salmon, beans, blueberries, nuts, seeds. I do not consume milk products if I'm trying to lose a few pounds. I do not consume high fructose corn syrup or any processed food. I do not consume caffeine. I do not smoke. I do not consume sugar.
It's possible to be healthy and be poor, just stop shopping at the supermarkets set up in poor neighborhoods for poor people like Stop and Shop, and go and buy your bulk food online. You can buy 30 cans of sardines, this is enough to give you breakfast/lunch for 30 days. You can buy 20 cans of salmon, and this will give you dinner for 20 days. You can buy a huge 20lb bag of nuts and this will last you 30-60 days.
The point is, you can eat healthy and be poor, but you have to eat boring. I essentially eat exactly the same 2-3 meals every day with no variation at all. When it comes to being healthy, with food diversity is bad. It's actually healthiest to eat the exact same foods on a regular basis because this way the body gets used to burning those foods efficiently and you wont put on any fat.
Speaking of fat, not all fat is bad, avocado and oil oil is good, fish oil is very good.
These are the three main products which cause obesity and health related issues in children. Corn Syrup and Caffeine are obvious because they aren't foods. Caffeine is a drug and Corn Syrup is an industrial chemical sweetener. This leaves Milk and the myth that all children need to drink milk. Milk has a lot of calories, and not as much nutritional value as sardines, beans, or other foods. Milk even when its low fat, tends to have hormones in it, and Milk has been known to raise insulin levels and actually promote fat storage. People such as body builders and athletes drink milk to bulk up and gain weight, and what do most kids have for breakfast? High fructose corn syrup and Milk in the form of cereal and milk. Public schools would force kids to consume these breakfasts, I know because I remember. How about we give kids a can of sardines for breakfast? No more obesity problem.
Milk and High Fructose Corn Syrup are two of the most unhealthy foods that children consume yet there is no tax on either one. The fat tax is therefore political in nature because if it were legit they wouldnt tax products, they'd tax ingredients, such as milk and high fructose corn syrup.
And before the pro milk people respond that milk has calcium, you can get more calcium from a can of sardines than you can get from a glass of milk, without the unhealthy side effects. Lets also consider banning the sale of caffeine to children, caffeine is a drug for christs sake and certainly isn't healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Respect is earned not given for free.
And no we should not be concerned about other peoples emotions unless we personally care about those people. If it's your friend or family, or if you need them for some reason then perhaps you should care, but even then you have to draw the line somewhere. There is no way to live life without hurting peoples feelings.
If you hang a noose in front of the house of a black person, and it hurts their feelings, should you be charged and go to prison?
I think a much better question is, "Why are you (and lots of others, apparently) so interested in getting away with being a mean-spirited shit to people most likely to suffer real emotional hurt from it under the guise of 'freedom of speech'?"
Whatever happened to the notion that others' feelings ought to matter to us as much as our own?
What notion is that? I don't exist to protect the feelings of complete strangers just like I don't exist to protect the bank accounts of complete strangers. Your emotions are your property just like my emotions are mine.
And I don't think the laws should remove all personal responsibility or individuality just to prevent some sensitive people from committing suicide. Those people will always find a reason to commit suicide whether you are nice to them or not so what is the point?
Have personal responsibility for your own mind. If you commit suicide it's no one elses fault but your own.
If you hang a noose in front of the house of a black person, and it hurts their feelings, should you be charged and go to prison?
I agree, Lori Drew is a psychopath. And because Lori Drew is a psychopath she deserves to be blacklisted.
It's not the fact of what she did that causes people to hate her, it's the fact that she is not remorseful about what she did.
Most people if they bully a child and that child commits suicide, they will feel bad about it for the rest of their life, because they know just like you do that a child has not had the experience to know. It's the age difference here that makes it so wrong, 20 years difference is just ridiculous and I can't imagine a normal adult doing something like that.
On the other hand I don't feel much sympathy for adults who commit suicide and blame others for it. Adults are on the same experience level and are responsible for their own moods and emotions. It's not like a child who might not be old enough to understand responsibility, even if the child is supposed to be responsible, a child might not be mature enough to understand it. An adult should understand it.
If you have bad Karma, you go on the blacklist. You get put on the blacklist and thats the green light for anyone to victimize you.
Lori Drew should be put on the blacklist, not because shes an asshole, or a bully, or even because she bullied a minor, but because she does not show remorse for what she did. Once on the blacklist, nobody will hire her anywhere, when burglars are looking for a house to rob they'll choose hers, when hackers are deciding whos computer to hack they'll choose hers, when con artists and predators decide who to prey on, they will choose her.
Being on the blacklist / having bad karma means nobody will feel any sympathy or compassion for you. If you go to prison and get raped in prison, nobody will care because you were a rapist.
You cannot talk a person into killing themselves if they don't already want to. You cannot talk a person into doing something they truly don't want to do.
What Lori Drew did is talk Megan into doing what she wanted to do. It's morally wrong but it should not be illegal. And also the new Missouri law is beyond ridiculous, it says that if you hurt anyones feelings who are under 18, you committed a crime. Let's be realistic, if you are in Missouri it's best that you don't talk to anyone under 18 on the internet because you can be sued more on the internet than if you hurt their feelings in person.
Ultimately the solutions they are coming up with are worse than the problem.
1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she: ...
(3) Knowingly ... causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making ... any electronic communication; or
(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is ... seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly ... causes emotional distress to such other person; or ...
(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to ... cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be ... emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
2. Harassment is a [class D felony if] ...:
(1) Committed by a person twenty-one years of age or older against a person seventeen years of age or younger ...
Basically Lori Drew is a typical asshole. She hurt a childs feelings, the child killed herself, and now people are angry and looking for laws to use against Lori Drew.
I don't think it should ever be a illegal to hurt someones feelings because then any minor you piss off can sue you.
1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she: ...
(3) Knowingly ... causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making ... any electronic communication; or
(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is ... seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly ... causes emotional distress to such other person; or ...
(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to ... cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be ... emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
2. Harassment is a [class D felony if] ...:
(1) Committed by a person twenty-one years of age or older against a person seventeen years of age or younger ...
That is the new law. And I think it's poorly written because it tries to claim a child is anyone under 18, which is completely ridiculous. Megan was 12 so I can understand, but if someone is 15 years old they should know better than to commit suicide over being insulted on the internet, even if its by an adult.
Also it means any child can claim something you said hurt their feelings and because it's so subjective then you are guilty until proven innocent.
But Harassment should be defined very specifically to mean that the minor said "leave me alone" or blocked the person, and the person continued to contact the individual. That is what harassment is. Just insulting a minor should never be illegal and if it is illegal, then we need to keep minor from Missouri off Slashdot so that none of us get sued if they commit suicide.
I favor using the technology to solve most of these issues, banning, blocking, ignore lists, and if all of that fails then use the law. The law should be the LAST resort.
No matter what you charge her with, she's not a murderer. She's a bad person, she's a heartless cruel person but she is not a murderer.
Prison probably wont change anything in this case because this is a unique case. The reason this case is unique is because the girl was 12 and this woman was in her 40s. If any new laws should be created it should be to ban under 13 from using social networking sites. Why on earth should kids even be on social networking sites?
I wouldn't mind if it were illegal to allow those under 13 to use the internet unsupervised. But to sue Lori Drew would be to blame the internet for Megans suicide, and that is not fair.This situation is an accident, and Lori Drew is a bad person who should have known better. She will never find a job again, she will be demonized for the rest of her life, and her reputation is ruined, that is worse than being in prison.
No matter what anyone says to you, if you decide to commit suicide it's your fault.
You are the owner of your emotions, not anyone else. Nobody but you is responsible for how you feel, and if you don't like how someone is making you feel you can stop talking to them.
If you talk to someone and call them a douch bag and they go and commit suicide you are not responsible for their suicide, they are.
The only emotions you are responsible for is your own.
If what she did was criminal they could have charged her with harassment. It's not a crime to trick a minor or an adult over the internet, nor should it be a crime. Yes there was more to it than that, and those aspects could be a crime depending on the details of the case.
The fact that she used a fake profile is not and should not be a crime. The fact that she tricked the child might be immoral but it should not be a crime. It should only be a crime if the child asked to be left alone, over and over again, and this individual would not go away. Then it should be a crime.
But no I don't think it should be a crime to hurt a child or adults feelings over the internet. Being an asshole should not be a crime.
People who hate Lori Drew, wanted to form a lynch mob using the law and the courts.
This is wrong, it was the wrong tactic from the beginning and I said that many months ago.
I'm not surprised that it failed, anyone who knows the law at all knew it wouldn't work.
But assume somehow the precedent was set, and now if you hurt a powerful persons feelings they can form a lynch mob and put you in prison? I'm sure many people would like that, but that is not justice.
1." purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet)"
I disagree with this. Emotions cannot be measured or quantified. How do you measure emotional damages to another person? How do we even know other people have emotions, do we have some way to scan their brain to know what they are feeling? That idea is completely stupid from a legal point of view, but from a moral point of view I can see why its wrong to bully children.
2. "a child she knows to have psychologically problems"
How do you know this?
3. "over an extended period of time"
There are already laws to address this. It's called harassment.
4. "directly suggesting suicide after manipulating, setting up, and torturing this child"
While I believe it's sad that a child had to die, the only one to blame for a suicide is the individual who committed it. You can never blame anyone else for how you feel or what you do in response. You have to accept and own your own emotions. In this case I have sympathy because it's a child involved, but if it were an adult I would not have sympathy about this.
5. "This does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world. No, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say."
Nobody has a responsibility to be nice to you. People can say whatever they want. If you try and censor what people can say you only make the matter worse.
Let people express themselves in text on the internet rather than violently.
Free speech is too important to throw it away over feelings being hurt. Free speech isn't about feelings, emotions, or psychology. It serves a vital practical purpose.
If someone harasses you then you can charge them with harassment, there are laws in place already. If someone stalks you then get a restraining order.
But if someone hurts your feelings, learn to own your emotions or stop talking to people who hurt your feelings.
sudo mod theraven64 up.
Having lived through an abused childhood, I have near zero sympathy for kids who are such losers that they can't face life's challenges. Not quite zero, but near it. This girl who committed suicide because some boy she had never met apparently turned on her isn't very far up the food chain from the idiots who choose to "go out in a blaze of glory" while shooting up their school. She was weak and unstable, and she chose to suicide. Her lack of a support group contributed, yes, but the fact remains, she failed.
I've seen someone's sig - "Instead of child proofing the world, let's world proof the child!" Damned good advice - I just can't remember where I've seen the sig.
I see your point and I understand your argument. This is what people use to ban violent video games as well. I don't think violent video games should be banned just because a few kids shoot up their schools. I don't think the internet should be ruined because a few kids commit suicide. And I also don't think the internet should be ruined because there are pedophiles on the net.
I think liberty must be preserved for the responsible. Anything which takes away liberty from responsible citizens to protect the children, is a political trick. We should enhance parental responsibility and control over the media that their children access, and if a parent buys a kid violent video games and the kid goes and shoots up their school, the parents should take responsibility for buying the game. You shouldn't try to ban the game.
So what should we do? We cannot just decide to continue to let people be victims of bullying, so perhaps we should teach kids how to deal with the internet before they use it? A mandatory class in school might help.
The only reason this case was pumped up was for political reasons. Bullies existed offline when I was growing up, and I had to deal with child and adult bullies. So how is this new? Because it's on the internet?
12 year olds shouldn't be on social networking sites in the first place. If they aren't old enough to distinguish reality from the internet, they should not be online. The same with violent movies and video games which also might cause suicides. Lori Drew was what we'd consider a bad person, and a bully, but alternatively you can turn the internet off, disconnect, block, ignore list, all which work better than suing.
In this case the girl is dead so it's too late, and the stuff Drew said was just wrong to say to a 12 year old, but since we cannot rid the world or the internet of assholes, and we have too many assholes to sue each one of them, we have to find a better solution. Maybe create an internet for kids only, or put some sorta age limits on social networking sites.
if you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise. But don't immediately starve yourself, try fasting for a few months and record how much weight you lose in that time. Exercise first thing in the morning, that will boost the metabolism and then wait until dark to have dinner and or snacks. It's that simple.
What we need to do is pay people to play games. Make a profession out of it, and promote the growth of ARGs.
If you like variety its going to be more expensive, if you don't mind eating beans every single day and fish every single day, it's cheap. In Japan they eat rice every single day with fish and thats sushi, and it's cheap, but if you have only sushi its also very boring.
To be healthy you need
1. Low glycemic index slow digesting carbs.
2. Protein.
3. Fat
4. A multivitamin.
So for carbs you can have a staple, beans, rice, anything but bread and sugar.
For protein go with fish or/and eggs, avoid mammals.
For fat go with polyunsaturated, such as olive oil, fish oil, flax seed, and in general sunflowerseeds are a good source of fat with a tradeoff of being high fiber.
The last tip is to eat the same 3 meals every day, every month, with as little variation as possible. After a few months of this you'll get tired of the taste but at the same time your body will have learned to efficiently burn off the kinds of foods you are eating. The body actually has evolved so that it burns off whatever you eat a lot of, so if you eat a lot of chips it gets good at burning chips, but if you eat a lot of high fat meats it gets good at burning that. The point is to not switch between high sugar, and high fat, in the same week or same day, if you have a coke with your burger and fries it will cause your body to not burn any of them efficiently but if you just have the burger, or just the fries, or just the coke, and you have that every day, the body will learn to burn that off efficiently. This is one reason why some people don't get fat, this is also why body builders don't eat with much variety and are ripped. Variety is the killer.
I used to think the same way because I'm still poor. I currently spend $150 a month on food, this is considered to be cheap. I eat sardines, salmon, beans, blueberries, nuts, seeds. I do not consume milk products if I'm trying to lose a few pounds. I do not consume high fructose corn syrup or any processed food. I do not consume caffeine. I do not smoke. I do not consume sugar.
It's possible to be healthy and be poor, just stop shopping at the supermarkets set up in poor neighborhoods for poor people like Stop and Shop, and go and buy your bulk food online. You can buy 30 cans of sardines, this is enough to give you breakfast/lunch for 30 days. You can buy 20 cans of salmon, and this will give you dinner for 20 days. You can buy a huge 20lb bag of nuts and this will last you 30-60 days.
The point is, you can eat healthy and be poor, but you have to eat boring. I essentially eat exactly the same 2-3 meals every day with no variation at all. When it comes to being healthy, with food diversity is bad. It's actually healthiest to eat the exact same foods on a regular basis because this way the body gets used to burning those foods efficiently and you wont put on any fat.
Speaking of fat, not all fat is bad, avocado and oil oil is good, fish oil is very good.
These are the three main products which cause obesity and health related issues in children. Corn Syrup and Caffeine are obvious because they aren't foods. Caffeine is a drug and Corn Syrup is an industrial chemical sweetener. This leaves Milk and the myth that all children need to drink milk. Milk has a lot of calories, and not as much nutritional value as sardines, beans, or other foods. Milk even when its low fat, tends to have hormones in it, and Milk has been known to raise insulin levels and actually promote fat storage. People such as body builders and athletes drink milk to bulk up and gain weight, and what do most kids have for breakfast? High fructose corn syrup and Milk in the form of cereal and milk. Public schools would force kids to consume these breakfasts, I know because I remember. How about we give kids a can of sardines for breakfast? No more obesity problem.
Milk and High Fructose Corn Syrup are two of the most unhealthy foods that children consume yet there is no tax on either one. The fat tax is therefore political in nature because if it were legit they wouldnt tax products, they'd tax ingredients, such as milk and high fructose corn syrup.
And before the pro milk people respond that milk has calcium, you can get more calcium from a can of sardines than you can get from a glass of milk, without the unhealthy side effects. Lets also consider banning the sale of caffeine to children, caffeine is a drug for christs sake and certainly isn't healthy.
Big business is not the same as small business. Big business is big government.