Is there any real excuse to be fat?

[Castillo]

I weighed about 230 pounds this time last year. I was one of those people with a very slow metabolism, and I didn't go to the gym as often as I should have. Then I joined the track team at my school, and started dieting like a son of a bitch. I'm down to about 195 now. I didn't use any particular diet, I just grew a pair and lost the weight. So is being fat just a matter of choice or lack of discipline? Or is there some other excuse for being fat? My Humanities teacher at my college is a big woman, but she has no desire to lose weight, and she doesn't complain about it. So are fat people just fat because they don't want to lose weight?

PS: I'm talking about people in general. I'm not refering to the people who are put on a medication that causes them to gain a lot of weight. I understand that they have an excuse.

[Moon Flavor]

I'm ~125 pounds currently. I've been trying like a mofo for the past year to just gain some weight, but so far it hasn't worked very well.

As difficult as it is for me to gain weight, I think it'd be even harder for a fat person to lose weight.

Basically what I'm saying is, most fat people could lose weight if it was their top concern in the world... but why should it be? Being fat doesn't really make you a worse person or anything. Why should you need an "excuse" to be fat?

[Tillius]

People want to make excuses but no, there really isn't one. I'm not fat, but I'm a bit overweight and could probably stand to knock off about twenty pounds, but for a long time I was unmotivated to do so, but now I'm working out a lot and it's making a difference.

Everybody could keep in shape if they had the true will.

[Castillo]

It is hard, extremely hard. I used the word "excuse" because I know a lot of fat people who complain that they can't lose weight and then eat at McDonalds frequently. It's these types of people that get me.

[Mr. Ron]

there is no excuse to be fat as long as its not some bodily disorder.

[sweboy]

Hay people have different appetites, different metabolisms, different will-powers etc. - and do you really choose the values yourself for all of these different parameters? Do you choose the level of temptation you experience when decidding to eat or not? I'm slightly annoyed by people who say "hey I don't eat too much because I'm disciplined, so fat people should do just like me, it's not hard" - but the level of hardship to overcome is not identical for everyone.

[nungman]

fat people are an eyesore and deserve whatever torment they receive from their peers until they make an active effort to shed weight

simple

[Tillius]

Hay people have different appetites, different metabolisms, different will-powers etc. - and do you really choose the values yourself for all of these different parameters? Do you choose the level of temptation you experience when decidding to eat or not? I'm slightly annoyed by people who say "hey I don't eat too much because I'm disciplined, so fat people should do just like me, it's not hard" - but the level of hardship to overcome is not identical for everyone.

This is true, but still they shouldn't complain. Temptation may be difficult but it is still just temptation and can be overcome.

[Mr. Ron]

Hay people have different appetites, different metabolisms, different will-powers etc. - and do you really choose the values yourself for all of these different parameters? Do you choose the level of temptation you experience when decidding to eat or not? I'm slightly annoyed by people who say "hey I don't eat too much because I'm disciplined, so fat people should do just like me, it's not hard" - but the level of hardship to overcome is not identical for everyone.
True, but everyone is capable of having the will to lose weight.


it also has to do with the quality of the food available.

[Already_Taken]

fat people are pretty gross, and it shows a lack of self respect when they're reckless about it

[JohnXDoe]

I weighed about 230 pounds this time last year. I was one of those people with a very slow metabolism, and I didn't go to the gym as often as I should have. Then I joined the track team at my school, and started dieting like a son of a bitch. I'm down to about 195 now. I didn't use any particular diet, I just grew a pair and lost the weight. So is being fat just a matter of choice or lack of discipline? Or is there some other excuse for being fat? My Humanities teacher at my college is a big woman, but she has no desire to lose weight, and she doesn't complain about it. So are fat people just fat because they don't want to lose weight?

PS: I'm talking about people in general. I'm not refering to the people who are put on a medication that causes them to gain a lot of weight. I understand that they have an excuse.
fat people are fat for some of the same reasons you were. and some different ones, too. i don't think they are required to lose weight. we all get to live and eat how we like

hopefully it doesn't turn to morbid obesity and stuff. but fat is ok by me. if you are so large you use it as a tool to manipulate a situation or something, or extra consideration needs to be given on some matters, it could be a problem i can see. but otherwise live and let live

you lost weight so thats great. be happy about that

[Aaron]

People without a medical condition which stops them from maintaining a healthy weight and who are fat have no excuse and shouldn't have access to public healthcare, just like smokers shouldn't.

[PerpetualBurn]

Hay people have different appetites, different metabolisms, different will-powers etc. - and do you really choose the values yourself for all of these different parameters? Do you choose the level of temptation you experience when decidding to eat or not? I'm slightly annoyed by people who say "hey I don't eat too much because I'm disciplined, so fat people should do just like me, it's not hard" - but the level of hardship to overcome is not identical for everyone.

But if we held this to be true we wouldn't consider anyone responsible for anything.

[Light Fantastic]

yeah theres a good excuse

cakes taste good

[ILLIMINATOR]

pnwi has been lacking inane topics lately

[StreetlightRock]

Light got this downpat

[Futue te Ipsum]

PS: I'm talking about people in general. I'm not refering to the people who are put on a medication that causes them to gain a lot of weight. I understand that they have an excuse.So medication induced changes to the metabolism, or indeed on the psychology are acceptable excuses, but should such things be present naturally they're not an excuse?

[kitsch]

Hay people have different appetites, different metabolisms, different will-powers etc. - and do you really choose the values yourself for all of these different parameters? Do you choose the level of temptation you experience when decidding to eat or not? I'm slightly annoyed by people who say "hey I don't eat too much because I'm disciplined, so fat people should do just like me, it's not hard" - but the level of hardship to overcome is not identical for everyone.

same with drugs, but addicts are still f'uck ups imo

[Rams]

Beer

[Knifeboy]

no there's no real excuse to be fat but why would you need one


True, but everyone is capable of having the will to lose weight.


says who

[Light Fantastic]

i support fat people as long as they pay more taxes

[Futue te Ipsum]

says whopeople who haven't studied the subject : /

[Det_Nosnip]

There's more excuse to be fat than to let your kids get morbidly obese. At least adults should know better...

Some people are definitetly bigger but anything over ~250 is ridiculous IMO. I honestly don't get why morbidly obese people don't just get the damn surgery...I mean, when you're too fat to exercise and your stomach is so big that you have to gorge yourself in order to feel full, there's no really great way to lose weight. Sure, there are some risks...but then being over 300 lbs is pretty much a guaranteed tombstone so the choice seems obvious to me.

[Mr. Ron]

no there's no real excuse to be fat but why would you need one




says who
people who are not fat because of actual health problems can lose the weight. If they are physically able to, that is. If you're too old to properly exercise I can see why you wouldn't lose weight. I'm not talking about ALL fat people, because some fat people are fat because of reasons they cannot help. Its all about the will to achieve something.

[kitsch]

no there's no real excuse to be fat but why would you need one




says who
hes jus mad, hes prolly a fatty

[Knifeboy]

some fat people are fat because of reasons they cannot help.

yeah.. like... lack of willpower

[Mr. Ron]

yeah.. like... lack of willpower
that can be helped through support groups that could be established.

Seriously, obesity is a very serious problem in my country. Something needs to be done about it.

[Knifeboy]

Here they're experimenting with doctors being able to give prescriptions for "exercise" ie free access to gyms if you're obese

[Mr. Ron]

Pretty good idea. Although it would be tricky to enforce.

[Knifeboy]

how so? You don't have to enforce it, you just give people free gym memberships so they have less of an excuse.. it seems to be working pretty good

[Mr. Ron]

how so? You don't have to enforce it, you just give people free gym memberships so they have less of an excuse.. it seems to be working pretty good
well I think there should be some sort of way that the doctors can keep track if they go or not. They're wasting the doctor's time if they give them something helpful and not go.

[Det_Nosnip]

That would lead to universal gym membership in the US. :p

[Knifeboy]

well I think there should be some sort of way that the doctors can keep track if they go or not. They're wasting the doctor's time if they give them something helpful and not go.

making the gym keep track of them isn't really all that hard. Nothing tricky about it!

[Mr. Ron]

we could always pull a Steve and suggest forced labor obesity camps in Alaska :D

[Knifeboy]

sign me up!

eerh, for the idea, not for the camp

[Mr. Ron]

no no no. its busting rocks for 8 hours a day for you!

[sadisticmonkey]

nope...there is no excuse..but when you think about it, i wouldn't worry about it...they'll either die younger, or get wise and get slimmer. It's not your problem...so don't worry about it...and if you yang on about fat people being an eyesore, you are opening up a can of worms that will allow "is there any excuse for you to be ugly?" kind of retaliation. Not all overweight people are morbidly obese-need a crane to lift them/useless as ****... the right people eventually wise up.

[JohnXDoe]

There's more excuse to be fat than to let your kids get morbidly obese. At least adults should know better...

Some people are definitetly bigger but anything over ~250 is ridiculous IMO. I honestly don't get why morbidly obese people don't just get the damn surgery...I mean, when you're too fat to exercise and your stomach is so big that you have to gorge yourself in order to feel full, there's no really great way to lose weight. Sure, there are some risks...but then being over 300 lbs is pretty much a guaranteed tombstone so the choice seems obvious to me.
surgery is the best and only way to long term permanent weight loss most likely. i knew a couple of people who had it done and it was truly remarkable. one guy lost over 200lbs in around two years, a woman 130 in around 8 months. and all their obesity related associated health risks went away. including diabetes

more insurance companies need to come on board and be more willing to pay for this. and if we get some sort of health care program they can do it...or subsidize it, too. the potential savings in long term medical cost to insurers and the taxpayer would most likely be substantial

[siva_chair]

Fat people are a good example why socialized medicine is a bad idea.

[guitrguy]

I think you mean fat people are bad for socialized medicine

[siva_chair]

No I mean fat people are a good example why socialized medicine is a bad idea. Smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc are more examples.

[McP3000]

people give me the worst looks when i complain about fat people

[Mr. Ron]

Captain Ahab would know what to do in a situation like this!

[jaredong]

i believe the level of "personal choice" in a characteristic should determine how much you should blame someone.

Something that someone did not choose (such as race or place of birth) should not be held against them. Something that someone does choose (such as the actions they make on a daily basis) should be held accountable to.

That being said, weight is something that has a level of choice. Nobody forced you to eat or not exercise. Hence, I think people should be blamed for their weigh.

However, i'd say one should consider the wealth of a person as an additional factor. Someone who is fat, but has no real time or money to have an adequate diet, should not be blamed as much compared to someone who is rich with all the opportunities it entails, and is fat.

[Light Fantastic]

you need money not to buy cakes

[Amit]

Fat people are a good example why socialized medicine is a bad idea.

woops you made a typo

i think you mean fat people are bad for socialized medicine

[Mr. Ron]

fat people are bad 4 trampolines.

[siva_chair]

woops you made a typo

i think you mean fat people are bad for socialized medicine

No I mean socialized medicine is a bad idea and fat people are an example of why it is. No typo.

I shouldn't robbed through taxation to pay for people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices.

[guitrguy]

No I mean socialized medicine is a bad idea and fat people are an example of why it is. No typo.

I shouldn't robbed through taxation to pay for people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices.

so socialized medicine breeds fat people?

[Amit]

No I mean socialized medicine is a bad idea and fat people are an example of why it is. No typo.

I shouldn't robbed through taxation to pay for people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices.

yeah sorry siva but you made a typo babe

altho i think the vast majority of fat people, smokers, gun owners, and white people should not be allowed to use social healthcare

they have just too many health issues

[siva_chair]

so socialized medicine breeds fat people?

No never said such a thing where on earth do you get that idea?

yeah sorry siva but you made a typo babe

Nope. Where, hun?

altho i think the vast majority of fat people, smokers, gun owners, and white people should not be allowed to use social healthcare

they have just too many health issues

There shouldn't be a socialized healthcare system. Period.

[BassRevelation0]

LoL Siva

http://sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=568566

[Amit]

yeah we're america the greatest country in the world but we have some of the worst quality of life in terms of health for a developed nation

let's keep doing that

i'm not sure why you're so opposed to this i mean it's not like you're part of wealthy america (nor do you have anything to do with the healthcare industry last i checked)

however, my family and my friends and their families would be the ones who would get doubly screwed by social healthcare

yet all of us are interested in increasing health parity for america

so why aren't you?

i mean, it's poor to lower middle class people like you and everyone else on mx who would benefit from this and the upper middle to upper class/those in the healthcare industry who wouldn't

[Light Fantastic]

i can get private cover from the supermarket thats cheaper and much more advanced than what i pay for in taxes under socialized medicine here tbh

american system is ****ed because of general corruption/collusion between politicians and hmo/drug companies

[JohnXDoe]

yes amit but you see its not about healthcare and real things like that its about ideology

yay

oh and lets just get the fats the operation. its like $12,000 and cures diabetes and high blood pressure and stuff. two day stay in the hospital. its a long term money saver :smoke:

[Amit]

it's all about the principle of the matter!

the progress of our nation and how its population is treated be damned!

[siva_chair]

yeah we're america the greatest country in the world but we have some of the worst quality of life in terms of health for a developed nation

let's keep doing that

False dichotomy, my dear. You assume that if we do not have a socialized healthcare system, we must have the one we have right now.

There needs to be major changes in the US's healthcare system, for sure, but those changes do not have to be more government, they can very well be less government.

We need a free market system, not the managed psuedo-socialist system we have now.

i'm not sure why you're so opposed to this i mean it's not like you're part of wealthy america (nor do you have anything to do with the healthcare industry last i checked)

Umm if I get robbed through taxation to fund it I very much have something to do with it.

My mother is part of the healthcare industry, fyi.

however, my family and my friends and their families would be the ones who would get doubly screwed by social healthcare

yet all of us are interested in increasing health parity for america

Good for you. Donate to private health charities then. Don't force everyone else to pay for it against their will.

so why aren't you?

Because I believe theft is wrong.

i mean, it's poor to lower middle class people like you and everyone else on mx who would benefit from this and the upper middle to upper class/those in the healthcare industry who wouldn't

Just because I may benefit from the government stealing money from one section of strangers to fund another section of strangers doesn't mean I think it is right or ok.

Also, I would say the costs overshadow the benefits, even to the poor.

[siva_chair]

it's all about the principle of the matter!

the progress of our nation and how its population is treated be damned!

It isn't going to progress our nation. It will bankrupt it by providing a relatively crappy service.

[Amit]

a free market healthcare system, even if it was possible in america (which it isn't) will not work because healthcare is far more massive than you give it credit

and yeah sorry i just feel like healthcare is a universal human right, not a privilege

clearly i'm not alone in this belief:

http://www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg

but that's the beauty of democracy! we can both agree to disagree and then let popular vote/government decide i'm right

i guess when your side loses, you can always move to north korea or something???

besides, lower classes wouldn't/shouldn't be hit at all with healthcare taxation; i think you highly overestimate your socioeconomic standing and worth

are you opposed to public schools?

[siva_chair]

a free market healthcare system, even if it was possible in america (which it isn't) will not work because healthcare is far more massive than you give it credit

It is completely possible in the US. You act as though the healthcare system is the product of the state, which it clearly is not.

and yeah sorry i just feel like healthcare is a universal human right, not a privilege but that's the beauty of democracy! we can both agree to disagree

Ok where does this so called universal human right derive from (aside from some appeal to emotion, that is).

Also, democracy is far from beautiful.

i guess when your side loses, you can always move to north korea or something???

The "if you don't like it you can gtfo" argument is pretty retarded. I'm suprised a man of your caliber would stoop to such a statement.

besides, lower classes wouldn't/shouldn't be hit at all with healthcare taxation; i think you highly overestimate your socioeconomic standing and worth

I think you fail to take into consideration the hidden tax of inflation, which hurts the poor more than anyone.

Also, why should wealthier people be forced to subsidize poorer people? No one has made any argument here why taxation is at all justified.

are you opposed to public schools?

Absolutely.

The free market can provide these services both cheaper, and of higher quality than the bureaucratic and calculatory nightmare that is the state.

[Light Fantastic]

worked examples for the uk

if i earn £12,000 a year (around min wage full time job)
i pay £59.95/month in national insurance tax
~£33/month for complete private coverage
~£15/month for the basic cover

if i earn £30,000 a year (just above average income)
i pay £224.95/month in national insurance tax
and same prices for the same insurance plans

if i earn £50,000 a year
i pay £325.28/month in national insurance tax
etc

also bear in mind the healthcare you get privately here is lightyears ahead of the national healthcare system

[ILLIMINATOR]

if u aint skinny ur gonna DIE b4 your friends

[Amit]

It is completely possible in the US. You act as though the healthcare system is the product of the state, which it clearly is not.

err guess what is the largest single entity providing money for medical research (the singular backbone of modern healthcare) in the united states

http://www.nih.gov/

strange is that a .gov at the end of that address

if the state left research, the US would fall off the damn map when it comes to healthcare

Ok where does this so called universal human right derive from (aside from some appeal to emotion, that is).

personally, it comes from my beliefs in neoconservatism

most people though refer to the universal declaration of human rights you might have heard of it???

Also, democracy is far from beautiful.

i agree! but it's to my advantage here

The "if you don't like it you can gtfo" argument is pretty retarded. I'm suprised a man of your caliber would stoop to such a statement.

i'm surprised someone who loves proclaiming how much he is trolling others on mx is taking me so seriously!

I think you fail to take into consideration the hidden tax of inflation, which hurts the poor more than anyone.

the hidden tax of not having healthcare hurts the poor *a lot* more than inflation ever will

literally!

Also, why should wealthier people be forced to subsidize poorer people? No one has made any argument here why taxation is at all justified.

because helping poor people helps wealthy people in the end

see above

Absolutely.

The free market can provide these services both cheaper, and of higher quality than the bureaucratic and calculatory nightmare that is the state.

yeah let's talk about the great job the free market has done for other super massive national issues such as modern telecommunications

[Amit]

this is interesting

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_conservative_case_for_univer.html

I am a small-government conservative/libertarian and have hated the concept of socialized medicine almost all my life. But now, I could live with universal health coverage in the U.S.. Here's why.

We now have the worst of both worlds: we are paying for universal health coverage, but not getting it. In fact, we pay more for health care in taxes than countries that provide universal coverage. Then we pay more than that amount again in private coverage. Additionally, what we have now in the U.S. is nowhere near a free market in health care. Defending the status quo is not defending a free market. And if socialized medicine is your fear, we already have it.

I've heard no one, on either side of the political spectrum, play up the fact that the government in the U.S. already spends more on health care than almost every other country on earth. I'm talking government spending, not private spending. According to the U.S. Statistical Abstract, government spending on health care in the U.S was $2,168 per person in 2001 (the last year for which comparison data are available). Here were the top 10 government spenders on health care in 2001.

[Reaganista]

no there's no excuse to be fat
i mean suicide is always an option if there's some reason u can't be skinny

[Amit]

ya pretty much

[siva_chair]

err guess what is the largest single entity providing money for medical research (the singular backbone of modern healthcare) in the united states

http://www.nih.gov/

strange is that a .gov at the end of that address

if the state left research, the US would fall off the damn map when it comes to healthcare

Hardly.

Where do you think funding for medical advancements came from before the state got involved in the medical industry in the US? Oh that's right the private sector. Guess what, we had the greatest healthcare system in the world at that time.

To think that private industry needs an incentive from the government to develop and market new medical technology is absolutely ridiculous.

personally, it comes from my beliefs in neoconservatism

most people though refer to the universal declaration of human rights you might have heard of it???

Yeah the whims of the ignorant masses hardly prove anything. Boobus Americanus (or in this case, Boobus Globalus) supports lots of retarded things. I hardly feel the need to point out how ironic it is that the same people who make this universal declaration of human rights also has some of the most corrupt states amongst it's membership that certainly don't even come close to following said document.

i agree! but it's to my advantage here

Sure but it doesn't do anything to validate anything.

i'm surprised someone who loves proclaiming how much he is trolling others on mx is taking me so seriously!

Well I just wonder if I should take serious the notion that you were of the caliber of individual I had thought. Please, say it isn't so my brown friend.

the hidden tax of not having healthcare hurts the poor *a lot* more than inflation ever will

literally! [/QUOTE]

Inflation raises the cost of healthcare so I would agree in that sense.

because helping poor people helps wealthy people in the end

see above

The best way to help the poor is to get rid of the main thing keeping them poor: the state.

yeah let's talk about the great job the free market has done for other super massive national issues such as modern telecommunications

Lol Telecom isn't a free market industry by any means. Telecom corporations have a government-granted monopoly/oligopoly. That industry if rife with government favoritism and contracts.

[Amit]

Where do you think funding for medical advancements came from before the state got involved in the medical industry in the US? Oh that's right the private sector. Guess what, we had the greatest healthcare system in the world at that time.

medical advancements didn't really happen before the NIH came around in 1930

and no one had good healthcare before or even after 1930

To think that private industry needs an incentive from the government to develop and market new medical technology is absolutely ridiculous.

tell that to all the neuroscience and biomedical researchers i work with/see daily at jhu

the free market will go where the money will be; important medical research is almost never where the real money will be

Yeah the whims of the ignorant masses hardly prove anything. Boobus Americanus (or in this case, Boobus Globalus) supports lots of retarded things. I hardly feel the need to point out how ironic it is that the same people who make this universal declaration of human rights also has some of the most corrupt states amongst it's membership that certainly don't even come close to following said d0cument.

yeah like the US

doesn't mean it's an invalid d0cument

Well I just wonder if I should take serious the notion that you were of the caliber of individual I had thought. Please, say it isn't so my brown friend.

what

The best way to help the poor is to get rid of the main thing keeping them poor: the state.

the best way to help the poor is to give them education and healthcare

the free market inherently has no interest in the poor

Lol Telecom isn't a free market industry by any means. Telecom corporations have a government-granted monopoly/oligopoly. That industry if rife with government favoritism and contracts.

that's exactly my point

telecom is not even close to approaching the scale involved with national healthcare and the free market can't even survive here

what really makes you think it would be anything approaching feasible with healthcare in america?

[Amit]

and what do you think about that libertarian link i posted

i will post it again just i ncase you missed it

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_conservative_case_for_univer.html

i am in full agreement with what he is saying

[siva_chair]

medical advancements didn't really happen before the NIH came around in 1930

and no one had good healthcare before or even after 1930

Not true. Comparitively, the US had the best healthcare system in the world.

Sure, they didn't have MRIs or any of the technological advances we have today, but you certainly can't compare today to then in terms of medical technology, nor can you state that medical technology is solely the result of the state.

tell that to all the neuroscience and biomedical researchers i work with/see daily at jhu

the free market will go where the money will be; important medical research is almost never where the real money will be

Important medical research is most certainly where money is. Developing new marketable technologies is very lucrative. The fact is, if medical companies didn't have the tax burdens they do, they would have much more available capital to spend on R&D, plus they wouldn't have all the bureaucratic waste that state insitutions have, which would probably make developing new medical technologies much more cost effective.

yeah like the US

No doubt about that.

doesn't mean it's an invalid d0cument

Doesn't mean it is a valid one either. In fact, the burden of proof would be on you to show how it is.

what

Nothing don't worry about it.

the best way to help the poor is to give them education and healthcare

And the best way to provide them with quality on both accounts is through the free market.

the free market inherently has no interest in the poor

Not true at all. There are great market opportunities for the poor. Providing affordable goods and services that the poor can afford is a market in of itself.

that's exactly my point

telecom is not even close to approaching the scale involved with national healthcare and the free market can't even survive here

What? It can't survive because the government grants favored contracts and monopolistic privilages to certain companies. This isn't the failure of the free market, it is a failure of government regulating the market.

Look at places where there is no government involvement in the telecom business and you will see a thriving market.

what really makes you think it would be anything approaching feasible with healthcare in america?

The fact that it is a service just like any other service on the market. And when the free market is actually allowed to function free from government coercion, it produces far superior results, whereas centralized planning and socialist policies ALWAYS and inevitably run into the same problems of calculation.

And as for the article I pretty much agree with him. Notice where he said: "Defending the status quo is not defending a free market. And if socialized medicine is your fear, we already have it."

I am defending a free market system, not the US's system, which was my entire point. I don't have to support the US's current system to reject socialized medicine.

[Futue te Ipsum]

also bear in mind the healthcare you get privately here is lightyears ahead of the national healthcare systemIt's not. Stop reading the daily mail. There are genuine problems in the NHS (read: govt accountability. Required, and yet at the same time means they stick their uneducated noses into what they don't understand), but overall the system is far far better than people in this country give it credit for, and private health isn't all that tbh.

[je suis un chapeau]

people with no experience in sciences or anything medical related shouldnt be allowed to have opinions about this stuff

[Light Fantastic]

i never said the nhs was bad though

i said private care was better and cheaper than what i pay for in taxes

and therefore more efficient

as for how far ahead they are.. the nhs waiting list targets (not actualities) are something like 18 weeks, whereas you can be seen immediately for any procedure you like if you are willing to pay. to most people in a fair amount of pain or ill health i'd say that alone constitutes a far far far better service, nevermind the numerous other perks you get when going private

[Iscariot]

No I mean socialized medicine is a bad idea and fat people are an example of why it is. No typo.

I shouldn't robbed through taxation to pay for people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices.

it really would be nice if life was completely black and white and all fat people were the direct result of unhealthy choices

but since it isn't and they aren't, shut up

[Light Fantastic]

so because a tiny portion of fat people didnt choose it we should treat them all on the assumption that none of them did

[siva_chair]

Yeah I still don't see how that means everyone else should be forced to pay for it.

[Iscariot]

so because a tiny portion of fat people didnt choose it we should treat them all on the assumption that none of them did

if even 1 fat person didn't choose to be fat, then yes it should be covered because it's not entirely due to poor choices

Yeah I still don't see how that means everyone else should be forced to pay for it.

would you have a problem pitching in to treat cancer patients? or AIDS sufferers? what about those who suffer from huntington's disease?

they all make up small portions of the population and the majority of them don't want to be terminally ill just like the majority of fat people don't want to be fat

being fat can lead to death just as easily as any of these other things so why should it not be treated

[Light Fantastic]

having a problem with pitching in is different than having a problem with being forced to

[Iscariot]

generally what people want to do is not what they should be doing

forcing them to do the right thing is perfectly acceptable and whether they like it or not is of no concern

[siva_chair]

would you have a problem pitching in to treat cancer patients? or AIDS sufferers? what about those who suffer from huntington's disease?

they all make up small portions of the population and the majority of them don't want to be terminally ill just like the majority of fat people don't want to be fat

being fat can lead to death just as easily as any of these other things so why should it not be treated

No one said it shouldn't be treated, and as LF said, there is a big difference between pitching in and being forced to pay.

I donate to charities whenever I can afford to (and I'd be able to afford to donate a hell of a lot more if I didn't have money taken from me by the government), so I'd say I pitch in. I have no problem with helping the genuinely needy, but I do have a problem being forced to.

generally what people want to do is not what they should be doing

forcing them to do the right thing is perfectly acceptable and whether they like it or not is of no concern

The state really isn't one to tell people what the right thing is. Especially considering it's track record...

Lots of terrible things have been done by people saying they were doing the "right thing."

Forcing people to do something they do not will to do goes against the very idea of liberty and freedom.

[Light Fantastic]

forcing them to do the right thing is perfectly acceptable and whether they like it or not is of no concernno its not thats retardedly subjective

[Iscariot]

No one said it shouldn't be treated, and as LF said, there is a big difference between pitching in and being forced to pay.

I donate to charities whenever I can afford to (and I'd be able to afford to donate a hell of a lot more if I didn't have money taken from me by the government), so I'd say I pitch in. I have no problem with helping the genuinely needy, but I do have a problem being forced to.

if you're pitching in voluntarily already then why do you have a problem with the state saying you need to do it

The state really isn't one to tell people what the right thing is. Especially considering it's track record...

speculative assumptions ITP

Lots of terrible things have been done by people saying they were doing the "right thing."

this is completely irrelevant since being forced to pitch in for medical care is not in any way opposing to the idea of doing the right thing

Forcing people to do something they do not will to do goes against the very idea of liberty and freedom.

people who use their freedom to harm others by denying them medical care don't deserve the freedom to choose

no its not thats retardedly subjective

not in the case of medical care it isn't

[Light Fantastic]

not in the case of medical care it isn'tok then objectively tell me why people with cancer need to live

[Iscariot]

ok then objectively tell me why people with cancer need to live

because every human being has the right to live

anyone who actually believes in liberty and freedom will agree

anyone who believes that someone is worthy of death because of either a bad choice or an illness needs to be willing to accept that they would be condemned to die by their own rules if they suffered the same ailment

[Light Fantastic]

oh wait too bad that whole post is just your opinion and not objective at all then isnt it

[siva_chair]

if you're pitching in voluntarily already then why do you have a problem with the state saying you need to do it


Umm because I get to decide what charities I support, I get to decide how much I can afford to give, and it isn't taken from me by force but is given through goodwill. Not only that, chances are every dollar I give to a private charity goes a hell of a lot further than the dollars that are taken from me.

speculative assumptions ITP

No, it's pretty much historic fact that the state has a really bad track record when it comes to deciding what is "right."

this is completely irrelevant since being forced to pitch in for medical care is not in any way opposing to the idea of doing the right thing

Except that the bit about it being forced. Theft is unethical and wrong.

people who use their freedom to harm others by denying them medical care don't deserve the freedom to choose

Umm what? That is a pretty stupid statement. That is like saying "If you choose wrong, you don't deserve to be able to choose" and completely goes against the idea of free choice.

No one is "denying them medical care," they are denying the claim that it is their right to steal (or have the government do it for them) from others to fund medical care.

[Iscariot]

it being my opinion is irrelevant since it's objectively the goal of the greater good

[Light Fantastic]

its not objectively anything

why do people have the right to live? because you think so

great, im sold

[Iscariot]

Umm because I get to decide what charities I support, I get to decide how much I can afford to give, and it isn't taken from me by force but is given through goodwill. Not only that, chances are every dollar I give to a private charity goes a hell of a lot further than the dollars that are taken from me.

it's stupid to assume that donating voluntarily to private charities is more beneficial than having an allotted amount of your paycheck given to state sponsored charities

private charities =/= honest charities

No, it's pretty much historic fact that the state has a really bad track record when it comes to deciding what is "right."

now hold on, who's being subjective?

Except that the bit about it being forced. Theft is unethical and wrong.

theft is the unlawful seizure of property or finances

it's not unlawful if it's the law

Umm what? That is a pretty stupid statement. That is like saying "If you choose wrong, you don't deserve to be able to choose" and completely goes against the idea of free choice.

choice is bad because people make bad choices

No one is "denying them medical care," they are denying the claim that it is their right to steal (or have the government do it for them) from others to fund medical care.

again, it's not theft

[Iscariot]

its not objectively anything

why do people have the right to live? because you think so

great, im sold

it has nothing to do with personal opinion the right to life is detailed in the UN universal declaration of human rights and in the international covenant on civil and political rights

things that benefit the human race and it's longevity are objectively good

[siva_chair]

it being my opinion is irrelevant since it's objectively the goal of the greater good

Umm wtf is the "greater good?"

That phrase has been used to justify some pretty terrible **** throughout history. You are going to have to show what the "greater good" is, what/who decides it, and why and how it/they determine it.

[Iscariot]

Umm wtf is the "greater good?"

That phrase has been used to justify some pretty terrible **** throughout history. You are going to have to show what the "greater good" is, what/who decides it, and why and how it/they determine it.

the betterment and extension of human life can easily be described as being a part of the greater good

[Light Fantastic]

the un saying it doesnt make it any more objectively so

natural selection benefits the human race

benefit is subjective

[Iscariot]

the un saying it doesnt make it any more objectively so

an internationally agreed upon doctrine to preserve the value of human life is objectively good

prove that it isn't

natural selection benefits the human race

human beings are above natural selection which is why we have our own laws founded in moral principle

benefit is subjective

not when it comes to helping people

[Light Fantastic]

an internationally agreed upon doctrine to preserve the value of human life is objectively good

prove that it isn't
illogical assumption that authority gives more weight to objectivity

the uns opinion is about as irrelevant as yours is concerning any objective right to life

human beings are above natural selection which is why we have our own laws founded in moral principlethen by stopping these people from passing on flawed genes we protect future humans from pain and suffering i could string this a hundred different subjective ways to arrive at a 'benefit'

[siva_chair]

it's stupid to assume that donating voluntarily to private charities is more beneficial than having an allotted amount of your paycheck given to state sponsored charities

No, actually it is very reasonable to assume it is more beneficial. Most charities don't have the horseshit redtape and hidden costs that the state does.

private charities =/= honest charities

Governments =/= justified charities/honest charities

now hold on, who's being subjective?

I'm pretty sure you are. It is a historical fact that governments have done some pretty terrible **** against the natural rights of people.

theft is the unlawful seizure of property or finances

Replace unlawful with unjustified and you get a little closer.

it's not unlawful if it's the law

Not all laws are ethical or just.

choice is bad because people make bad choices

Freedom is bad because people might do something I don't like.

again, it's not theft

Yes it is. Others have no right to take your property without your consent. Taxes aren't voluntary they are taken by force. There is no real difference from someone robbing you at gunpoint and the government forcing you to give up money through threat of violence.

[Iscariot]

illogical assumption that authority gives more weight to objectivity

authority is the best judge of objectivity

compliance with authority and agreement with the ideals of authority is what's subjective

the overall logical benefits of the actions taken by that authority are not debatable

the uns opinion is about as irrelevant as yours is concerning any objective right to life

the goal of "right to life" is to preserve life to ensure the continuation and progression of our species

if you find the idea that this is objectively good to be subjective, then you're just pathetically argumentative

then by stopping these people from passing on flawed genes we protect future humans from pain and suffering i could string this a hundred different subjective ways to arrive at a 'benefit'

if you can't prove that 100% of individuals suffering from a terminal illness will undoubtedly pass on that illness to future generations then whatever fantastic strings you can tie together to create your own idea of a beneficial outcome are irrelevant and unworthy of acknowledgement

[Light Fantastic]

authority is the best judge of objectivity

compliance with authority and agreement with the ideals of authority is what's subjective

the overall logical benefits of the actions taken by that authority are not debatableso you think all un actions have an objective benefit because they are an authority i mean lets just get this out of the way so you can say yes and people can know you are retarded

if you find the idea that this is objectively good to be subjective, then you're just pathetically argumentativewhy, because it undermines your worldview and you dont want to consider that?

if you can't prove that 100% of individuals suffering from a terminal illness will undoubtedly pass on that illness to future generations then whatever fantastic strings you can tie together to create your own idea of a beneficial outcome are irrelevant and unworthy of acknowledgementsee again you are just inventing arbitrary conditions to match your own (also arbitrary) opinion on life

if we use most of your 'definitions' of benefit then natural selection has been and is certainly beneficial to the human race

[Iscariot]

No, actually it is very reasonable to assume it is more beneficial. Most charities don't have the horseshit redtape and hidden costs that the state does.

this is a biased and illogical statement which you have yet to provide any factual backing for

Governments =/= justified charities/honest charities

it's hard to see clearly when your eyes are blocked by tin foil

I'm pretty sure you are. It is a historical fact that governments have done some pretty terrible **** against the natural rights of people.

then i guess you wouldn't have any problem proving that 100% of authoritarian governments have made decisions that were non-beneficial to the general populous

Replace unlawful with unjustified and you get a little closer.

theft is the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

read the dictionary

justification is arbitrary

Not all laws are ethical or just.

not all oppositions to the law are ethical or just and in fact most are just silly

Freedom is bad because people might do something I don't like.

"like" is an arbitrary term

what someone likes is irrelevant if what they dislike is generally good for the entire population

Yes it is. Others have no right to take your property without your consent. Taxes aren't voluntary they are taken by force. There is no real difference from someone robbing you at gunpoint and the government forcing you to give up money through threat of violence.

stop being childish and reactionary

the government threatens no one with violence if they don't pay their taxes, unless you consider jail time for not contributing part of your wages to the functionality and continuation of your society a violent response to your own greed

[Iscariot]

so you think all un actions have an objective benefit because they are an authority i mean lets just get this out of the way so you can say yes and people can know you are retarded

troll post

provide and explain a UN action that hasn't been generally beneficial

why, because it undermines your worldview and you dont want to consider that?

irony

see again you are just inventing arbitrary conditions to match your own (also arbitrary) opinion on life

no i'm applying logical conditions to explain why free choice is counter-productive to the prolonged existence of the human race

you're providing arbitrary counter-statements to create an argument with no basis in reality

if we use most of your 'definitions' of benefit then natural selection has been and is certainly beneficial to the human race

i think your train fell off it's tracks

[Light Fantastic]

ok i think we have had sufficient interaction for the smart people to dismiss your opinion so my job here is done

[siva_chair]

this is a biased and illogical statement which you have yet to provide any factual backing for

Private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Regulations and bureaucracy rule all else in government systems. Private charities are much better able to target assistance to those who really need help. This inherently leads to more efficient aid distribution. 70 cents of every dollar goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor.

Ok, now your turn. Please demonstrate how the state is better equiped to distribute charity and how it can do it cheaper and more efficiently than private organizations.

it's hard to see clearly when your eyes are blocked by tin foil

Is it? I really wouldn't know, as all I have done here is appeal to reason.

then i guess you wouldn't have any problem proving that 100% of authoritarian governments have made decisions that were non-beneficial to the general populous

Sure, name a state and I'll point out what ways they have infringed on the liberty of the people.

theft is the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

read the dictionary

justification is arbitrary

No, ethics are derived from reason and natural rights, not some piece of paper or guy in a robe.

not all oppositions to the law are ethical or just and in fact most are just silly

I didn't say they were. That is a strawman if I have ever seen one.

"like" is an arbitrary term

Umm so is what constitutes the "general good."

what someone likes is irrelevant if what they dislike is generally good for the entire population

"Generally good" is as arbitrary as like.

stop being childish and reactionary

I'm not. Quite the contrary, actually, I am being rational and refusing to excuse unethical behavior for "matters of the state."

the government threatens no one with violence if they don't pay their taxes, unless you consider jail time for not contributing part of your wages to the functionality and continuation of your society a violent response to your own greed

Umm yeah people arresting against your will is violent. Arresting you for unjust reasons is unjustified violence.

It is also a non-sequitur to say that society would not function or continue without taxes.

[Futue te Ipsum]

i never said the nhs was bad though

i said private care was better and cheaper than what i pay for in taxes

and therefore more efficientIt can be cheaper for the individual if they earn enough money, but per treatment (like for like. convenient that not many, say, recurrent cancer treatments are done through private health) it is much more expensive. They spend more on doing fewer consultations. It's simple math.
as for how far ahead they are.. the nhs waiting list targets (not actualities) are something like 18 weeks, whereas you can be seen immediately for any procedure you like if you are willing to pay. to most people in a fair amount of pain or ill health i'd say that alone constitutes a far far far better service, nevermind the numerous other perks you get when going privateWhat, like pretty pictures, sexier nurses and older doctors?

The waiting list depends on the treatment required. You're not going to be waiting 18 weeks for A&E; hell, if it actually is an emergency you won't wait 18 minutes. Life threatening? You won’t wait 18 seconds.

Our private health care is very cheap in comparison to Americas. Why? When **** hits the fan the NHS will cover the bill. having private health care doesn't exclude you from NHS treatment. Knowing that the expensive, long term and life threatening treatments will be handled within a framework outside of private health allows prices to be kept artificially low.

[Knifeboy]

if britain is anything like denmark, part of the money you pay for the NHS also goes to private clinics

[Det_Nosnip]

the free market will go where the money will be; important medical research is almost never where the real money will be
WTF are you talking about? Giving old men erections is VERY important!

[Foehammer]

I'm not going to waste time reading this thread.

Instead,

"Is there any real excuse to be fat?"

No.

[Super Batman]

No, there's not an excuse to be fat. No, you will not get my charity by being fat. No, I will not give you free plane seats. No, you cannot 'raid my fridge'.

No, you will not get my charity for being handicapped.
No, you have no excuse to be handicapped.

Despite all the horribly placed arguments for anarchy(Or general lack of a government), this thread will flourish.

[lfantwister]

WTF are you talking about? Giving old men erections is VERY important!
would be more important if abortions were covered under health insurance (just a point i dont think i want to turn this into an abortion thread)

provide and explain a UN action that hasn't been generally beneficial
oil for food, refugee programs in the DRC...

also, if you're fat you should be held accountable for the societal repercussions of your fatness. so if people look at you askance you cant like sue them

fat people should have mandated health insurance so that taxpayers dont have to pay for their stupidity & disrespect for their bodies

[Super Batman]

Ifantwister, will you marry me?

[lfantwister]

depends

are you hot

[Super Batman]

Profile picture is me from last year.

[Foehammer]

Profile picture is me from yesterday

[Iscariot]

ok i think we have had sufficient interaction for *the smart people to dismiss your opinion so my job here is done

it always cracks me up how you wait until i'm offline to make these little last minute quips because you get a raging boner if you get the last word

oh and btw

"*the people i agree with"

your recycled repertoire of troll responses is enough proof that you aren't one of the "smart people"

[DeathMagnetik]

obese ppl r greedy 4 food

[Super Batman]

obese ppl r greedy 4 food

Our newest philosopher blinds me with his overwhelming intelligence.

:lol:

[mocha bear]

I lost 12kgs in 4 months at the beginning of the year :D

[Super Batman]

Congratulations! That's wonderful. Were you on a diet and workout plan, or just one of those?

[mocha bear]

not really on a workout plan, i just went whenever i could and did cardio lots (it helped that there was a gym on college grounds so there was easy access etc.)

[Jude]

Getting free plane seats is not "getting your charity"

[Montana]

I had a friend who was really fat and I never saw him eat anything but salad. It was puzzling.

When I go to the library I get a little freaked out because of all the overweight women I see there. They are the only people who use the elevator.

[interviewer02]

There are many excuses, for example

-its genetic

-I'm lazy

-I love food

-I don't want to be skinny

-I play offensive line in football

-I don't want to see my penis

[Knifeboy]

you forgot
i'm not fat i'm just big boned

[Castillo]

There are many excuses, for example

-its genetic

-I'm lazy

-I love food

-I don't want to be skinny

-I play offensive line in football

-I don't want to see my penis

Those aren't excuses. They are the six signs of pussyism.

[Amit]

genetics isn't psusyism sorry babe

while it is true that the vast majority of overweight and obese people in the West are ov/ob because of poor dieting and a sedentary lifestyle, there is most definitely those who should and will need to seek medical attention in order to start to address their obesity and mitigate all the health risks associated with obesity

[-Obscurity-]

its not objectively anything

why do people have the right to live? because you think so

great, im sold

Hey if we eliminate all the people that buy into that "people don't have a right to live" nonsense, we can finally rid the earth of that foolish notion. And they shouldn't mind being terminated because they didn't think they had a right to live in the first place.

[Angmar]

good point

[Mr. Ron]

There are many excuses, for example

-its genetic

-I'm lazy

-I love food

-I don't want to be skinny

-I play offensive line in football

-I don't want to see my penis
For most overweight and obese people its not.


genetics isn't psusyism sorry babe

while it is true that the vast majority of overweight and obese people in the West are ov/ob because of poor dieting and a sedentary lifestyle, there is most definitely those who should and will need to seek medical attention* in order to start to address their obesity and mitigate all the health risks associated with obesity
*mandatory blubber suctioning.

[Det_Nosnip]

Mandatory is going a little far.

[Knifeboy]

For most overweight and obese people its not.


except for the fact that it is.

[Amit]

Mandatory is going a little far.

yeah

government subsidies and extra taxation on those who don't do it however

[Reaganista]

i dont care if it's genetic that's no excuse

[Super Batman]

There is no right to live, as far as I'm concerned.

[Det_Nosnip]

yeah

government subsidies and extra taxation on those who don't do it however

lol tax by the lb?

That would only be even remotely defensible if we had universal health care btw.

[Foehammer]

There is no right to live, as far as I'm concerned.

Why do you say this?

[Castillo]

genetics isn't psusyism sorry babe



It was genetic with me. I had a slow metabolism, but I learned how to speed it up.

[Knifeboy]

by masturbating furiously?

[Super Batman]

Why do you say this?

I don't think being born brings about a 'right to live'. Sure, you can survive--If you want. Extinction is the rule, survival is the exception.

[Foehammer]

Carl Sagan?

EDIT:

Couldn't think of a reason that someone would be entitled to a right to live

[peeted]

I don't think being born brings about a 'right to live'. Sure, you can survive--If you want. Extinction is the rule, survival is the exception.

The existence of any other right presupposes the right to live. Talk of rights in general is embeded in the majority of political and ethical discourse. So unless your a complete nihilist you probibly implicitley presuppose a right to life in your normal reasoning.

For example you say "you can survive, if you want", this suggests a right to make ones own choices, choices canot be made without life so the right to life is presupposed by the right to free choice (or any choice for that matter)

[Castillo]

by masturbating furiously?

By eating small portions six times a day every three hours so that your body knows when it's going to eat again which prevents it from storing the food you eat as fat. That is how you speed up your metabolism. And run in the morning. If you want.

[Castillo]

The existence of any other right presupposes the right to live. Talk of rights in general is embeded in the majority of political and ethical discourse. So unless your a complete nihilist you probibly implicitley presuppose a right to life in your normal reasoning.

For example you say "you can survive, if you want", this suggests a right to make ones own choices, choices canot be made without life so the right to life is presupposed by the right to free choice (or any choice for that matter)

The kid that swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own.

[peeted]

Your point being?

[Mr. Ron]

except for the fact that it is.
I don't buy it. You can't tell me most of alllll the overweight AND obese people in the world are fat because of genetics. Of course there are people that are fat due to genetics, but overall I think it has to do with inactivity and diet. People weren't this fat 50-60 years ago.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I also used to be a fat guy. I decided I didn't want to be so fat, so I made conscious choices to eat healthier and be slightly more active. I lost a lot of weight that way.

I think if all fat people did the same, there would be less fat people.

[Amit]

I don't buy it. You can't tell me most of alllll the overweight AND obese people in the world are fat because of genetics. Of course there are people that are fat due to genetics, but overall I think it has to do with inactivity and diet. People weren't this fat 50-60 years ago.

yeah but they also lived substantially worse lives 50-60 years ago

[Mr. Ron]

yeah but they also lived substantially worse lives 50-60 years ago
Well of course, however they ate more home cooked meals that didn't involve so much of the poisons we have in a lot of our food sources now, plus fast food wasn't consumed as much (fast food started to evolve in the mid-late 50's) I'm willing to say they were more physically active as well.

[siva_chair]

It is a good example of how for every problem we solve with technology, it paves the way for new problems to arise.

[McP3000]

yeah but they also lived substantially worse lives 50-60 years ago
now they're going to live substantially shorter lives

[Amit]

Well of course, however they ate more home cooked meals that didn't involve so much of the poisons we have in a lot of our food sources now, plus fast food wasn't consumed as much (fast food started to evolve in the mid-late 50's) I'm willing to say they were more physically active as well.

you should read up more on america's diet history

it's how we ate 50-60 years ago which is screwing us over now

2 or 3 large meals over the course of more than 12-16 hours? that's about the worst way to eat if you want to avoid being a fatass

home cooked meals (or not) is largely irrelevant to the slowing metabolism of the Western gen pop

a sedentary lifestyle is a definite contribution, but you could work out every day and eat like americans have done for the last 50-60 years and still not be anywhere near fit and sexy

it all comes down to metabolism and diet; exercise (or lack thereof) can skew it either way, but the foundational baseline is metabolism

[McP3000]

you should read up more on america's diet history

it's how we ate 50-60 years ago which is screwing us over now

2 or 3 large meals over the course of more than 12-16 hours? that's about the worst way to eat if you want to avoid being a fatass

home cooked meals (or not) is largely irrelevant to the slowing metabolism of the Western gen pop
how does the diet of people 50-60 years ago have any bearing on the fatasses today that are mostly under 40?

[Amit]

how does the diet of people 50-60 years ago have any bearing on the fatasses today that are mostly under 40?

see edit

like everything we do, our eating habits are largely based upon society and culture

and american society and culture's attitudes towards how much to eat and when hasn't changed at all for a very long time

[Mr. Ron]

you should read up more on america's diet history

it's how we ate 50-60 years ago which is screwing us over now

2 or 3 large meals over the course of more than 12-16 hours? that's about the worst way to eat if you want to avoid being a fatass

home cooked meals (or not) is largely irrelevant to the slowing metabolism of the Western gen pop

a sedentary lifestyle is a definite contribution, but you could work out every day and eat like americans have done for the last 50-60 years and still not be anywhere near fit and sexy
Hmm, yeah I see what you're saying. However I believe that their physical activity lent to a low obesity rate. They could eat all of that, but in the end they'd work it off.


see edit

like everything we do, our eating habits are largely based upon society and culture

and american society and culture's attitudes towards how much to eat and when hasn't changed at all for a very long time
Well, the thing that did change is the quality of food and what is in it, I think. Sugar is in nearly EVERYTHING now for instance. Combine just that example with the American way of eating and its going to be a train wreck.

[Amit]

Hmm, yeah I see what you're saying. However I believe that their physical activity lent to a low obesity rate. They could eat all of that, but in the end they'd work it off.

check the national public health records

heart disease has always been a top killer in the West, especially among the middle and upper classes

Well, the thing that did change is the quality of food and what is in it, I think. Sugar is in nearly EVERYTHING now for instance. Combine just that example with the American way of eating and its going to be a train wreck.

ever have a really traditional home cooked american meal? if it wasn't for me working out constantly when i stayed in wisconsin for a month, i would have ****ing rolled back to baltimore

[Mr. Ron]

check the national public health records

heart disease has always been a top killer in the West, especially among the middle and upper classes
I'll look into it. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, I just think the bulk of our problem is not only our sloth-like lifestyles, but our inactivity.

[JohnXDoe]

home cooked meals lol

http://i40.tinypic.com/2czo6d5.jpg

and what is all this "activity?" walking in the snow to school? i would dare to say society is MORE active today. and we have more opportunity to be so. what with a gym on every corner and more time on our hands then ever

+ its not like in the 1960's or 50's people were sweating in the fields, exactly. not like it was the slave days. oh sure, no fat slaves....but then again they never ate well anyway :'(

[Amit]

I'll look into it. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, I just think the bulk of our problem is not only our sloth-like lifestyles, but our inactivity.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/264/24/3178

For those aged 65 years and older, heart disease remains the leading cause of death, accounting for almost 50% of all deaths in persons 85 years and older.

That's the most important age demographic for measuring the affect of obesity.

[Mr. Ron]

home cooked meals lol

http://i40.tinypic.com/2czo6d5.jpg

and what is all this "activity?" walking in the snow to school? i would dare to say society is MORE active today. and we have more opportunity to be so. what with a gym on every corner and more time on our hands then ever

+ its not like in the 1960's or 50's people were sweating in the fields, exactly. not like it was the slave days. oh sure, no fat slaves....but then again they never ate well anyway :'(
and that meal (although not that healthy to begin with) is probably better for you than what you get at BK or McDonalds.


Yeah, we have more time, probably, but that time isn't utilized to become fit in a lot of cases.

[siva_chair]

Hunter-gatherers probably had the healthiest diet, tbh.

[JohnXDoe]

and that meal (although not that healthy to begin with) is probably better for you than what you get at BK or McDonalds.

most likely but don't forget about "seconds" and desert

much of traditional "american" food is "meat and potatoes" unhealthy. and of course our "ethnic foods," which have become just as standard, can be terribly unhealthy, too. and its what fast food places base their menus on

funny you should mention it, however. just an observation i had a few days ago....

i was out shopping for X-Mas early monday and was at the mall. big food court. lots of food choices. baked potato place, healthy japanese, chinese, italian food and chili and soup place. panda express, sandwiches. lots of stuff. pretty decent for a mall. but...the only real line of people stood at the McDonalds storefront. a pretty long line. not just kids, either. in fact most were adults, some fat, some not. just like the rest of us. and the mall McDonalds is no cheaper then any other place there

just made me think why would these people choose to spend $7 on a quarter pounder w/ cheese, fries, a drink, and a pie when they could spend the same on a hot plate of chicken, veggies, and rice grilled up real nicely? i just don't get it :confused:
Hunter-gatherers probably had the healthiest diet, tbh.
interesting. their is actually a scientific theory which some claim is fact that people who are morbidly obese (or simply CAN'T stop eating) are hard wired as "hunter gatherers." that its unnatural for them to get food as they do, so they get real fat

the theory is (and studies have been done) that WAY back in the day food was scarce, or at least not readily available. even just before all this "fast food." but with food so readily available now, some people still have a "hunter gatherer" mentality, and they horde. because instinctively they feel tomorrow their may be no food. which could mean starvation, eventually. so it sets off a trigger to eat as much as possible TODAY. and everyday

because even though surrounded by food they feel threatened somehow that it won't be there....or because they are fat.... they won't be able to eat it tomorrow. because they must LOSE weight. which goes against our fundamental nature somehow. this triggers a "starvation" mindset and that mindset, because food is on every corner, leads to vast over eating. because food is not really on every corner in nature. and if it is it must be gotten through steps, not driving up to a window and ordering junk from a dollar menu

i've heard this talked about vv seriously. and if explained well enough makes sense

[siva_chair]

interesting. their is actually a scientific theory which some claim is fact that people who are morbidly obese (or simply CAN'T stop eating) are hard wired as "hunter gatherers." that its unnatural for them to get food as they do, so they get real fat

the theory is (and studies have been done) that WAY back in the day food wss scarce, or at least not readily available. even just before all this "fast food." but with food so readily available now, some people still have a "hunter gatherer" mentality and horde. because instinctively they feel tomorrow their may be no food. which could mean starvation, eventually. so it sets off a trigger to eat as much as possible TODAY. and everyday.

because even though surrounded by food they feel threatened somehow that it won't be there....or because they are fat.... theywon't be able to eat it tomorrow. because they must LOSE weight. which goes against our fundamental nature somehow. this triggers a "starvation" mindset and that mindset, because food is on every corner, leads to vast over eating. because food is not really on every corner in nature. and if it is its must be gotten through steps, not driving up to a window and ordering junk from a dollar menu

hey don't shoot the messenger i've heard this talked about vv seriously. and if explained well enough makes sense

Never heard that before. Do you have some sort of source I could check out on this subject? Interesting theory.

Here is an article I read a long time ago by Jared Diamond concerning hunter-gather v. agricultural lifestyles.

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

[Iskandar]

Hunter-gatherers like the Khoi-San and Australian aboriginals are (or were) typically quite healthy. This had to do with both diet and their active lifestyle.
2 or 3 large meals over the course of more than 12-16 hours? that's about the worst way to eat if you want to avoid being a fatassYeah, the way we eat is quite stupid. First of all lunch should logically be the largest meal as it is in much of the world.

[Super Batman]

I'd agree with this. Very much so.
Eat as much as you 'use'.
If you're not going to be physically active, don't eat as much.

[Foehammer]

BUT IT's SOOOO ADDICTIVE

[Super Batman]

Then get fat, die, and stop crowding areas.

[Foehammer]

brb buying one plane ticket even though i'll take up two seats

[Mr. Ron]

most likely but don't forget about "seconds" and desert

much of traditional "american" food is "meat and potatoes" unhealthy. and of course our "ethnic foods," which have become just as standard, can be terribly unhealthy, too. and its what fast food places base their menus on

funny you should mention it, however. just an observation i had a few days ago....

i was out shopping for X-Mas early monday and was at the mall. big food court. lots of food choices. baked potato place, healthy japanese, chinese, italian food and chili and soup place. panda express, sandwiches. lots of stuff. pretty decent for a mall. but...the only real line of people stood at the McDonalds storefront. a pretty long line. not just kids, either. in fact most were adults, some fat, some not. just like the rest of us. and the mall McDonalds is no cheaper then any other place there

just made me think why would these people choose to spend $7 on a quarter pounder w/ cheese, fries, a drink, and a pie when they could spend the same on a hot plate of chicken, veggies, and rice grilled up real nicely? i just don't get it :confused:


The major fast food corporations have pretty much engineered their food to taste really good, plus the cheap factor.

[Super Batman]

It puts me at just as much as a loss.

[Mr. Ron]

I eat fast food probably 3 times a month, mostly when I'm hanging with my friends and we go out to grab something fast.

It never fails though, after I eat BK I feel like **** for a few hours.

[Foehammer]

I eat fast food maybe 3 times a year.

[Super Batman]

I generally eat according to how much I've planned to work out. I don't mind having some Pizza if I've planned some heavy cardio or the like for later in the day.

[Foehammer]

You just cant catch up with the food.

[GnRguitarist]

America should create a fat people hunting season. Kinda like we do with deer.

[Meatplow]

no

in an age full of fat pills and educational texts such as Super Size Me we should know better

[BridgeToSolace]

One study found that 80% of the offspring of two obese parents were obese, in contrast to less than 10% of the offspring of two parents who were of normal weight.[35][18]

The percentage of obesity that can be attributed to genetics varies from 6% to 85% depending on the population examined.

Interesting, if not entirely relevant, I guess. The thread seems to have decided that as long as it's up to will power, there is no excuse. I don't really agree with that, but oh well.

Chocking it up to will power is too easy. How many people in this thread, if they were obese, would lose the wait asap? Is there any excuse for being a drinker? It tastes/feels good? I do it for social reasons? You know, so just stop drinking. You probably could if you really wanted to, but you don't...

Because you don't really want to. And isn't that a decent a excuse? If there's no excuse to be fat then there's no excuse to do anything that negatively effects your body or others. It's just easier to identify someone who's fat.

I don't know about other states, but MA has a food tax, at least for restaurant food, I'm not sure about markets. About 5 cents on the dollar. So yes, fat people pay more taxes since they're eating more food.

[JohnXDoe]

i'ma eat a whole box of See's chocolate today :)