|
| Thread: Obesity (Long series of images within) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted August 16, 2009 06:05 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 06:20, 16 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
I'm getting really pissed right now: can you show me ANY post of mine where "ILLEGAL" is in?
So what sense makes this post? Don't you bother anymore to read posts? Are you ill-willing by nature? Doesn't it matter anymore what people are writing? What?
What the HELL is wrong with you?
Worse, that post is dumb, because it misses one of the main points - that things are made for being bought. Pollutants in water, for example, may have a lot of reasons, but they are not put into it to make you drink more. See the difference?
Probably not.
Who cares.
Show me where I said your post said ILLEGAL? I was talking about the slippery slope where things first get taxed, then becomes illegal.
It is funny because of the slippery slope, and the 'I know better then them how they should live'. First comes the tax on things that 'some' people don't care for. Like say alcohol. Then comes the prohibition. There is no sanity left anymore. Your right, it is not funny. Not anymore.
If it is something dangerous to other people, I am all for taxing and limiting/banning. Being overweight is only really dangerous for the person overweight. If we tried to prevent everything that was 'harmful' to a person we'd all be wearing white coats with long sleeves that go behind the back. Living in padded cells. Now before you get off tangent on the 'but there is a diffence between addictive properties being purposely put in'. Let me assure you I understand your point. People KNOW about the addictive properties and just don't CARE, so why should I BABYSIT them? The government should not be BABYSITTERS either.
Should somethings be taxxed/banned. If there is a risk to other people AROUND the person then yeah. If it is something just dangerous to the individual, I say 'go for it'. Or else we start having to tax/ban anything that is harmful, and Jolly that list is HUGE. Even the air we breath is on it.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 16, 2009 06:48 AM |
|
|
fat ppl make me lulz
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 16, 2009 07:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Obesity (Long series of images within)
And no images of actual fat people. HC, I am disappoint.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted August 16, 2009 08:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Asia is doing something that other people really should be doing. Obesity has a plethora of health concerns attached to it, more so than the commonly known heart problems, so this is something that really should change.
Interesting fact. Asians and Europeans react differently to fat. Ancient Europeans had to deal with the famous European winter. So, they built up a tolerance to fat, which gives them the ability to store up extra layers for insulation. Normal BMI is in the 20s, obesity starts at 30. East Asia has no such extreme winter, and Asians have no such built-up genetic tolerance. They develop the same health problems at BMI 25 as Europeans get at 30. This means, that, roughly speaking, Asians are twice as fat as they look, when compared to European populations. So all those charts at the beginning of this thread? Almost certainly they need to be recalibrated.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 16, 2009 09:36 AM |
|
|
I really have the impression that some people her have to grow up a little bit.
First look at the points made that start with something like:
"If we would take care of ALL dangerous things..."
That IS NO point, because if it WAS, we wouldn't ever do anything. Why give anyone anything? If I would give ALL people in the world..."
That's often cmbined with "the slippery slope". Once we start marking out something as potentially harmful, it will come inevitably to prohibition, criminalization and loss of freedom, and now you can add "point" 1, and say, and if we'd prohibit and criminalize everything that's dangerous we could just forget life from the beginning.
Then, blizzard. Suddenly he starts with free decision of people. The thing is, obviously, if free decision was working, if people would think about the future, there wouldn't be so many obese people in the first place, so the fact that there IS, shows that there is something wrong.
So what IS wrong?
Wrong is the combination of some situational facts;
1) People in the US and Europe have more money than they need for their immediate and naked life (that's quite different in Asia or has been quite different there - talk about reasons why they are not obese)
2) People are less walking there (means of transportation, cars, busses, trains - that's different in Asia as well)
Now look at the situation of young people first; times have changed, insofar that the ALLOWANCE of children and juveniles has been getting always higher and higher, starting in the 70s. In the 50s and 60s it was pretty common that children and juveniles would earn part of their allowance themselves, saving, for example, for a bike. Or an instrument. There wasn't much TV nor tele-gaming.
Obviously that has changed. Children amd juveniles simply get allowance and spend a lot of time in front of the silver screen. Young people also are not caring much about what will be in 30 or 40 years - they spend their allowance for a burger and a coke, followed by an ice cream plus sweets and/or potato chips in front of the screen.
Basically the same thing is true for grown-ups. Lots of them work sitting, have unhealthy eating habits and tend to excesses in terms of eating and drinking on weekends to make up for the work they spend with working in the treadmill of office life or whatever.
The bottom line is, that a lot of people are overweight.
It doesn't really matter whether you eat too much (of the wrong stuff), drink too much (of the wrong stuff), or smoke too much (of the wrong stuff) - for the people who do it in general the result is the same. If you are 6 feet and weigh 130 kilos you have a serious problem, and it's not smaller than the problem you have when you drink a bottle of wine each day.
For those who want to throw in now something like, yeah, but food isn't unhealthy, but alcohol is: not so. A glass of red wine each day is extremely healthy, ask your doc, as is a glas or two of beer.
The trouble is that all that stuff is habit forming.
Now, about the option to think about the future. If that was true, no one would smoke. Fact is, that people do not think about the future when their life style is so that it's slowly adding up - so slowly, it doesn't tell. That is so with smoking, and that is so becoming overweight.
Additionally, it's a lot easier to gain weight than to lose it again. While you had "fun" gaining it, not really realizing it, losing it is a painful process.
Add to that the fact that the tempting of a full shelf in a supermarket is always there, and it becomes difficult to resist.
For healtier food - the trouble is, it's a lot more expensive. Take for example something like chocolate cream for breakfast: Nutella, that kind of stuff. In Europe you can get a glass of cheap stuff for under 1 €. Now take the health stuff - first thing is, it tastes different, not so sweet, because they use different sugar and a higher nut percentage (which I find extremely tasty, but kids tend to like it less than the really sweet stuff). That stuff costs 3,50 to 4,50 for a glass of the same size.
That is so with everything. The "health" stuff is EXPENSIVE. Or, in other words, the junk stuff is CHEAP.
That would be correct of the junk stuff would taste bad, and while in some cases the health stuff IS tasting better, in general this is not the case - "taste" and "health" are not related anymore in our times.
Lastly, reading some of the people here, you'd think that taxing cheap-sugar and cheap-fat products high and force them to mark their products with the same slogans like those used for cigarettes would be the end of all freedom here and all people should be left to rot.
They are typically not realizing the dayly bombardement with product propaganda that the normal mind will absorb without realizing it - people are not free, but constantly influenced, and if you want people to be able to make reasonable decisions you have to inform them and you have to make sure that unhealthy isn't cheap.
A last note on the ludicrous notion to leave people to themselves, if they "failed" (for example, if they had unprotected sex). Practically there can't be as many courtrooms as you would need for that in which people would try to decide whether a certain illness was the consequence of a slight overweight or is normal with age or whether a certain overweight would be enough to justify not getting help and so on.
Reading those things ou really have to ask about where people sometimes leave their sense.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 16, 2009 09:51 AM |
|
|
They leave it (their common sense) when they think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own body. Drinking can hurt other people (somebody gets behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk, or such). Smoking can hurt other people (second hand smoke). Eating unhealthy does not harm anybody else directly. Now I have no issue charging tax on food if it is ALL food. Heck a 2% tax on food would put a huge dent on our 'deficit'. I don't even have an issue with health warnings.
What I take issue with is the 'hollier then thou' attitude people have. "I should be able to tell you how to live, because I am smarter then you." type attitude. Some people NEED to eat cheap, because they can't really afford anything else. Instead of making 'unhealthy' more expensive, make 'healthy' cheaper!
Of course since what is considered 'healthy' seems to change every time you turn around or blink..good luck with that.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 16, 2009 10:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They leave it (their common sense) when they think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own body. Drinking can hurt other people (somebody gets behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk, or such). Smoking can hurt other people (second hand smoke). Eating unhealthy does not harm anybody else directly.
Sorry, but that is just nonsense. What CAN hurt other people in connection with drinking and smoking IS prohibited. Driving under alcohol, smoking in public areas. HOWEVER, drinking and smoking isn't forbidden IN GENERAL - no one is trying to tell others what they do with THEIR own body, even though he consequences of too much drinking and smoking are clear for smoker and drinker.
Instead, in these cases, SINCE SMOKING AND DRINKING ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF SOCIAL LIFE, society tries to erect walls between these things, the interest of the manufacturers to sell their stuff, and especially young people by
a) restricting adverstisement
b) printing warnings
c) information campaigns
d) taxing
Quote:
Now I have no issue charging tax on food if it is ALL food. Heck a 2% tax on food would put a huge dent on our 'deficit'. I don't even have an issue with health warnings.
What I take issue with is the 'hollier then thou' attitude people have. "I should be able to tell you how to live, because I am smarter then you." type attitude. Some people NEED to eat cheap, because they can't really afford anything else. Instead of making 'unhealthy' more expensive, make 'healthy' cheaper!
Of course since what is considered 'healthy' seems to change every time you turn around or blink..good luck with that.
Don't you see that what you say here has nothing to do with the problem? No one has a holier attitide, no one tries to tell anyone how to live - except, of course, the advertisement that is constantly there, brain-washing everyone into not even realizing it anymore.
What *I* really take issue with is that attitude that people have: "Nobody should be able to tell me how to live", when in fact everyone is doing it already, when you read a peper, watch TV, look at ad boards and so on.
There is not really much of a difference in reading a meassage like, "if you want to have fun, drink this" or something like "if you want to get fat, drink this".
Lasty, about healthy and expensive - bad stuff = cheap, good stuff = expensive, doesn't that seem logical? Anything more to say about that? People COULD eat and drink good and expensive, but why would they, when they have no indication that cheap is bad?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 16, 2009 06:38 PM |
|
|
Many people are stupid. I understand that. But if they want to disregard the consequences and have cancer and heart attacks, I'm willing to let them go ahead and do that. Just because they eat chips every day doesn't mean I should have to pay extra when I choose to indulge myself in some once in a while. I also have no problem with printing warnings. Information campaigns are good if done properly - but I don't trust that they'll be done properly. (Just look at abstinence-only sex education.) But restricting advertising and increasing taxes - that I'm against for sure.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 08:32 AM |
|
|
Ok, gonna try this one more time, then I think I will let it rest.
People mean well, they really do. Looking out for people's health is a good thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. As I've been trying to say. Somebody JUST wants to help people and try to enlighten them, make things better for them. It is a decent thing. Except that they forget a few things.
The information is out there, in fact here it is EVERYWHERE. I can't read a newspaper, check MSN (or other internet news site), read a pamplet, or even SNEEZE without hearing about the latest 'health' craze. I don't know about where everybody else lives, but unless you live under a rock where I live you know that 'junk' food is unhealthy. That includes MOST fast food (though most fast food places now do offer 'healthier' choices). So education on the subject is NOT the issue.
So a person wants to JUST tax something so people will have to cut down on it. Except that they forget that cheap is all some people can afford. It may not be healthy, but it feels a belly. Taxing it will just mean they can afford less and it will be even more detrimental to those who can only afford 'cheap'. Also 'cheap' doesn't not automatically = bad for you. There are some very cheap veggies and fruits out there.
Now, I will say this slowly so maybe it will be better understood. This is where the 'slippery slope' comes in. This person got a law/tax passed 'just' to help somebody. Somebody else finds something else that is 'just' to help somebody, and gets it passed. I mean, it's for people's best interest .. no harm right? Then somebody else finds something, and somebody else. It's JUST to help the general population. What's the harm..right? Hey you know how many germs are on a human body? Lets tax sex and marriage, after all all those germs can't be good for you. Oh spices..spices make things taste good, and makes you want to eat more. Lets tax all spices, espcially salt!
Tea..it has caffeine. Wait..didn't we one time have a 'tea party' because of tax on tea? Hmm. So yes, I think that taxing food because it is unhealthy is not only rediculous, but IS a slippery slope. But its JUST for the greater good..right?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 09:21 AM |
|
|
Mytical, excuse me, but that's just ignoring what society is nowadays.
The situation is different. It's not like "the world" out there is neutral or something and every option is likewise liable.
Think back a bit to the golden time of smoking, of great cinema advertisement for cigarettes, of Marlboro Country and Camel boots with the hole in it, think of enjoyment... also think about the fact that Coke came initially with what the name indicates.
If noone intervenes - what's wrong with smoking, especially when it's so darn cool? What's wrong with coke in the Coke, if it's so darn chill? What's wrong with boosting everything with fine artificial flavors to make some tasty junk?
We don't live in a void, we live in an endless commercial - and in a worls where CHILDREN are flooded with commercials because they have access to them. It doesn't matter for a child whether the nutritional info is given - it doesn't care. What it cares for is the giveaway you get when buying a junior menu or the Ronald McDonald Clown show or how cool, smoking people look or the Barcadi island or whatever.
There is a constant influencing at work to buy something for the wrong reasons, and that is superceding all reason and sense: Once can't hurt, can it?
People are not supposed to think and decide for themselves - advertisement was invented to avoid just that, and whether you can imagine that or not, it is working, and it is working fine, and if you want to have results, you cannot leave the influencing solely to those who want to make a profit.
If you don't see that, I can't help it. Some people just don't want to to see the reality.
|
|
Kraken
Famous Hero
I just love being elemental
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 02:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Each person has to decide what to do about it himself. The govenment should not try to impose an exercise regiment or to control the diet of the population.
I think a large part of the problem is that more people now work jobs that do not require exercise. They are sitting at a desk or mostly standing in one plaace for a long time with little actual exercise.
There is a furthur problem with commute times. Cities zoning businesses out of neighborhoods are one cause of this. Now people have to get on a road with bumper to bumper traffic and sit in their cars for long periods of time. Thus between work and commute there is not much time for exeercise on week days.
Europe has more public transportation in general than the US and thus the walk more to get to the bus or metro station. Certain large US cities, mostly in the East have decent public transportation systems but most don't.
Many public schools in the US no longer allow physical exercise in schools becuase someone has to win and someone has to lose when you play a team sport, tag, or other games. And losing is considered a bad thing that will sacr a child's psyche forever by the leftists who control the public educatin system. So to avoid liability from lawsuits recreation is not very active.
Many parents allow their children to sit in front of the computer or TV all day instead of requiring them to get up and do something more active. It seems they can't be bothered to parent their children.
I agree completely, Elodin. I am Obese myself, but I'm doing something about it, 'm regularly walking, and I measure myself often. I only eat at McDonald's like every Six Months, and I changed my diet. I am currently 20 Pounds overweight or something, but I am working on it. I actually started to change my ways after I saw Supersize Me, twice. And right now, I am currently prejudice against immensely fat people, and smokers. Both are terrible things to do to your body.
____________
Vini Vidi Vici
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 04:48 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:50, 17 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
It's related to health - as is obesity. I mean you aren't having this thread because you find obesity unpleasant, are you?
I just find an oppressvie government grinding citizens under its boots to be oppressive. I prefer freedom. I don't need a government "health" beaurocrat in my kitchen telling me what I can eat and what I can't.
Sweets in moderation ARE NOT harmful. Eatting fatty meats is probably as bad or worse.
Furthur, if I wanted to sit around eating chocolate ice cream all day long it is not the government's business. Of course socialized health care means the government says everything is their business and under their control.
People know smoking is bad for them. People know eating too much is bad for them. People know sleeping around is bad for them People know a lot of things they do is bad for them for do it because they want to live their lives and have fun. Some people like different things. Most people do some things in their lives taht are bad for them. Not everything that is bad for you should be forbidden by the government. In fact most things should not be unless you are hurting someone else in the process. It is called liberty.
Whether the government makes a behavior illegal or just taxes the heck out of it, it is still oppression and an attempt to control the behavior of the people.
Also, BMI IS NOT an accurate way of measuring fat. Some people have very large frames and will alwasly be obese under such a test. I am 6 foot tall with a large frame. i weigh 253 pounds as of this morning (I just weighed.) Probably I am a little "overweight" but I really don't have a lot of fat.
Who is going to determine who is fat too and who is not. Also, "science" changes its ideas often about what is healthy and what is not. I remember a recent study that said slightly overweight people live longer.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090625/study-overweight-people-live-longer
Quote:
June 25, 2009 -- There is more evidence that people who are overweight tend to live longer than people who are underweight, normal weight, or obese.
In a newly published study, people who were underweight and those who were extremely obese died the earliest.
Oh, and I consider an oppressive government to be far far far more unhealthy than any practice I could have.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 06:24 PM |
|
|
|
I'm sure you are in favor of legalizing all drugs. After all everyone knows they are bad.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 06:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sure you are in favor of legalizing all drugs. After all everyone knows they are bad.
Making them illegal has brought us drug wars and gangsters.
____________
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 06:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure you are in favor of legalizing all drugs. After all everyone knows they are bad.
Making them illegal has brought us drug wars and gangsters.
Clearly they aren't illegal enough 
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 07:01 PM |
|
|
Well, let me phrase this a bit differetly.
I'm sure Elodin is in favor of legalizing drugs without any ifs and buts - no warnings, no information, no taxes, no nothing. After all people know the dangers.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If noone intervenes - what's wrong with smoking, especially when it's so darn cool? What's wrong with coke in the Coke, if it's so darn chill? What's wrong with boosting everything with fine artificial flavors to make some tasty junk?
Nothing! Let the people make their own mistakes. They have nutrition facts and ingredients posted on everything - if they're not smart enough to look at that, then that's their problem.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 08:27 PM |
|
|
I don't have a problem with legalizing drugs and having them subject to the same taxes as other goods. But if you commit a crime under the influence of a crime you get a severe penalty.
Put the drugs under the regulation of the Food and Drug Administration same as other controlled substances.
Oh, and if you get hooked you get no tapayer meney to send you to some clinic. Each time you commit a crime under the influence of a drug the penalty becomes more severe. Sort of like a drunk driving conviction. If you kill someone under the influence, you get an automatic death penalty.
Oh, and public intoxication with alcohol is illegal and so should public intoxication on drugs be illegal.
What all that has to do with being fat is beyond me. If I want to pig out on ice cream and potatoe chips that is not going to hurt you at all.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 17, 2009 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What all that has to do with being fat is beyond me. If I want to pig out on ice cream and potatoe chips that is not going to hurt you at all.
No but psychologically it will butcher me...
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 06:12 PM |
|
|
@Joker:
Many of your statements are nebulous.
Yes, Americas+Europe are well provided for, so that is an obvious reason there would be more obesity, as opposed to somewhere like Africa, or even in India and China, where even if they can get food, it's still a pretty costly good. But S. Korea + Japan are both 1st world countries, and have been for several generations, and yet they remain in the yellow as well.
The fact that food can be habit forming is especially nebulous. Anything that produces pleasure is psychologically habit forming. Marijuana has no addictive chemical agents, and yet it is still highly habit forming.
What you're doing is being ruthlessly opportunistic, by snatching on to a trend that is barely 20 years old, and claiming that barring advertisement and creating high taxes on some foods is necessary; that such actions from the government are necessary. Your parallel to smoking is weak. The widespread smoking was largely due to ignorance, which isn't something you can fix until more knowledge is shed on the issue, so I don't see that as related. Secondly, even when this knowledge became better known, smoking companies continued to paint false images and even paid some doctors for their commercials, as well as not listing the ingredients of their cigarettes. This is fraudulent, and of course I think it should have stopped. That's simply the government protecting people's rights, which is it's job.
We empirically know that high taxation and government interference is not necessary, because the Americas+Europe have been well provided for and evil capitalists for many generations, and yet there was no swift upward spiral towards obesity. The rise is due to a drastic decrease of physical activity and desire for quick food; but humans are covetous beings, and we are already witnessing the obesity rates (in America anyway) to bottom out, and the momentum to be thin & sexy is starting to drive people back. You're barely even giving society a chance to work itself out, but instead instantly pouncing on the chance to weave more government webs.
As for warnings & labels: I eagerly support this, and would even be okay with expanding it. There are commercials for prescription drugs that require them to list every single possible adverse side effect of the drug in a very explicitly clear manner. I would have zero problem for this being mandatory for food as well. People can already do this by reading the nutritional facts, but I have no problem with redundancy.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
