Fat People

[quote name='evilmax17']You're all idiots.

People are what they are. Look at a fat guy now, and look at them when they were in preschool, and I'll bet you they were fat then. So what, are you going to accuse a little kid of "eating too much?" Most (underline most) people are the way they are, + or - 20 or so pounds.

In my experience, fat people eat just like everyone else, and skinny people don't exclusively eat fruit and drink bottled water.

Most college students who drink beer every other day and down whole pizzas in a single sitting aren't fat. And how many fat people do you know that aren't on diets (that never seem to work)? It doesn't matter what you eat, your body is going to process it the way its going to process it.

Fat people are the last people that are acceptably mocked. We can't make fun of peoples' races any more, which means no more Black/Mexican/Polish jokes. Can't make fun of women any more either. So who's left? Fatties. And they're unfairly shouldering the brunt of insecure peoples' criticism.[/QUOTE]

Quoted for the fuck ing truth. Love to see some of these people say some crap like that to someone's face instead of using the internet to block their idenity.

Some of the same people who always asks for pics on AOL/Yahoo because they are too afraid to talk to someone that doesn't fit their imagination.
 
[quote name='vietgurl']If you wanna push the survival of the fittest genetics thing a bit more, people who have heart disease, cancer, are or were alcoholics, or have a mental illness shouldn't be allowed to have kids. And while we're at it, people with eating disorders are obviously weak-willed so while we're weeding out the fat people, we're also taking out people with weak minds...although I'm not too sure genetics play an instrumental role in that.[/QUOTE]

We could also kill all babies that don't have blue eyes and blonde hair, and we could call outself Hitler too :D

Just kidding with you, but you get the drift :)
 
[quote name='camoor']
Yet making people with a car get car insurance (or pay a fine), but letting them stroll around without health insurance (potentially makine me sick), is a pretty ridiculous situation.[/quote]

Driving is not a right and isn't a basic necessity of life. There's a difference between that and simply living.

weak willed wonders
Click to expand...

Maybe you could have insurance companies pay for therapy. Oh wait, that's just zombification.
 
[quote name='The Dord']We could also kill all babies that don't have blue eyes and blonde hair, and we could call outself Hitler too :D

Just kidding with you, but you get the drift :)[/quote]

Haha, you are trying to tie this to eugenics and then you make the reductio ad adsurdum of labeling those trying to turn the tide of obesity as Nazis?

You fail at the internet.

Did anyone see Boston Legal last night, pretty funny stuff. I had to agree that fructose corn syrup is straight up evil.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Maybe you could have insurance companies pay for therapy. Oh wait, that's just zombification.[/quote]

I find that money is the best motivator. Lose 50 pounds or pay a premium! That's what I call "minding business"
 
[quote name='camoor']I find that money is the best motivator. [/quote]

Well then that suggests you have evidence to support that point. Do you?

You "advice" seems about equal to "don't have sex".
 
[quote name='camoor']I find that money is the best motivator. Lose 50 pounds or pay a premium! That's what I call "minding business"[/QUOTE]


and how well is the sin tax doing at stopping smoking?
 
Well, look at what banning it from public is doing.

[quote name='niceguyshawne']and how well is the sin tax doing at stopping smoking?[/quote]
 
[quote name='camoor']Haha, you are trying to tie this to eugenics and then you make the reductio ad adsurdum of labeling those trying to turn the tide of obesity as Nazis?

You fail at the internet.

Did anyone see Boston Legal last night, pretty funny stuff. I had to agree that fructose corn syrup is straight up evil.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not the only one that has you on ignore now. You may not care.
 
This topic rules. I think there are shades of grey when it comes to fat people although I have little sympathy for someone who is overweight but doesn't exercise or eat healthy. It does work you know...
 
Fat people are already disadvantaged enough. While I definitely would favor some sort of financial hit on smokers who are 100% accountable for their behavior, there can be many mitigating factors as to why some people are fat (and people do have to eat). However, they should not get any special treatment.

Anyway, what's the cutoff point for being "fat"? Over 50% of Americans are considered overweight based on BMI criteria.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well then that suggests you have evidence to support that point. Do you?

You "advice" seems about equal to "don't have sex".[/quote]

However it's a clever solution. If more people get fat, they pay more into the system, and they help to pay for their increased share. If people wish to avoid the fat tax (and who doesn't want to save some money) they lose pounds, and don't cost the medical system extra money.

We could have a campaign about fatties similar to the "truth" campaign about smoking, however. Anything to solve the problem, anything to lessen our status as laughing stock of the world.
 
[quote name='camoor']However it's a clever solution. [/quote]

No it's not. At best it's overly simplistic. It's a solution that might make sense to the general public, but they're opinion worth much in these situations. To the average person the death penalty reduces homicide rates (it doesn't), and raising taxes on alcohol reduces it's use (it doesn't).

And it's very possible that, since many people eat more after negative events and when they're depressed, that it may increase weight in those people. Just like people who are insulted for their weight often eat more.

We could have a campaign about fatties similar to the "truth" campaign about smoking, however. Anything to solve the problem,
Click to expand...

So you expect stigmatizing weight will solve the problem? It's dangerous because it could increase the strain on mental health services among those who do not lose weight and it could further increase the blight of eating disorders among men and women. It does nothing to solve the problem. It does not deal with the causes of weight issues, only the end result. It does not ensure healthy food is available. For example, in high school it was either a salad (meaning eating the same thing every day) or sub, pizza, hamburger etc. that was served in the cafe. At many colleges if I want something healthy I don't have much choice other than a salad. And, in many areas, groceries are woefully understocked in healthy food. And, if they do have them, it often costs much more to eat healthy, leaving the poor more likely to gain weight. I could easily cut my grocery bill in half (or even by 75%) if I just bought the cheapest stuff, but it isn't very healthy.

It does not do anything to strengthen willpower, it does not to inform people of what is and isn't healthy. And, it doesn't instill healthy eating patterns.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Laughing stock of the world?

What?[/quote]

He seems to think people mock us due to obesity levels, instead of our president, rejection of science and education (creationism, hostility against global warming) etc. I don't really want to get into whether it's right or not, but those are bigger reasons for people laughing at us than what camoor says. Though his black and white "just stop eating" form of logic is something we are mocked for.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you expect stigmatizing weight will solve the problem? It's dangerous because it could increase the strain on mental health services among those who do not lose weight and it could further increase the blight of eating disorders among men and women. It does nothing to solve the problem. It does not deal with the causes of weight issues, only the end result. It does not ensure healthy food is available. For example, in high school it was either a salad (meaning eating the same thing every day) or sub, pizza, hamburger etc. that was served in the cafe. At many colleges if I want something healthy I don't have much choice other than a salad. And, in many areas, groceries are woefully understocked in healthy food. And, if they do have them, it often costs much more to eat healthy, leaving the poor more likely to gain weight. I could easily cut my grocery bill in half (or even by 75%) if I just bought the cheapest stuff, but it isn't very healthy.

It does not do anything to strengthen willpower, it does not to inform people of what is and isn't healthy. And, it doesn't instill healthy eating patterns.[/quote]

Have you even seen the truth campaign? It highlights the dangers of smoking and educates you on how many people die as a result of lighting up - using very visual and jarring methods. Education as to how harmful obesity is, and who profits from it (Fat Dons, Taco Hell, etc) could only help solve the problem.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']He seems to think people mock us due to obesity levels, instead of our president, rejection of science and education (creationism, hostility against global warming) etc. I don't really want to get into whether it's right or not, but those are bigger reasons for people laughing at us than what camoor says. Though his black and white "just stop eating" form of logic is something we are mocked for.[/quote]

Now who is being black and white? I doubt any rational person would accuse me of defending the stupidity/ignorance of fundamentalist christianity (creationism) or Dubya. Calling America fat is a cheap shot, but more often then not it contains some truth.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you expect stigmatizing weight will solve the problem? It's dangerous because it could increase the strain on mental health services among those who do not lose weight and it could further increase the blight of eating disorders among men and women. It does nothing to solve the problem. It does not deal with the causes of weight issues, only the end result.[/QUOTE]

I hope nobody is arguing that weight isn't stigmatized already. Just read this thread to prove that point quite easily.

http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/Obesity_Consumer_Protect.shtml
* Approximately 40 percent of women and 25 percent of men attempt to lose weight at any given time.
* Approximately 45 million Americans diet each year.
* Consumers spend about $30 billion per year trying to lose weight or prevent weight gain. This figure includes spending on diet sodas, diet foods, artificially sweetened products, appetite suppressants, diet books, videos and cassettes, medically supervised and commercial programs, and fitness clubs.
* Spending on weight loss programs is estimated at $1 to 2 billion per year.
Click to expand...

Wow, I guess all we need to do is make people try to lose weight, then everything will fall into place! :roll:

Oh wait, let's talk a bit about the side effects of this pressure on people to be the "right" weight and the constant yo-yo dieting:

http://www.edap.org/p.asp?WebPage_ID=294
# Between 0.5-1% of American women suffer from anorexia nervosa.
# Between 5-20% of individuals struggling with anorexia nervosa will die. The probabilities of death increases within that range depending on the length of the condition
# Anorexia nervosa has one of the highest death rates of any mental health condition.
* Bulimia nervosa affects 1-2% of adolescent and young adult women.
Click to expand...

I guess we can all agree what a great idea it is to "stigmatize" someone because they are "overweight" and make them feel ashamed (surely they aren't feeling that way already!) so they will change and we will all live in la-la land happily ever after.
 
[quote name='camoor']However it's a clever solution. If more people get fat, they pay more into the system, and they help to pay for their increased share. If people wish to avoid the fat tax (and who doesn't want to save some money) they lose pounds, and don't cost the medical system extra money.

We could have a campaign about fatties similar to the "truth" campaign about smoking, however. Anything to solve the problem, anything to lessen our status as laughing stock of the world.[/QUOTE]

By that logic, we should also penalize people who don't exercise since a sedentary lifestyle is also a proven risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

Anyway, I have no problem with health care resources going to fat tax-paying citizens; that's not the reason health care costs are so high but that's the subject of another debate (which was already beaten to death in a previous thread).
 
[quote name='camoor']Have you even seen the truth campaign? It highlights the dangers of smoking and educates you on how many people die as a result of lighting up - using very visual and jarring methods. Education as to how harmful obesity is, and who profits from it (Fat Dons, Taco Hell, etc) could only help solve the problem.[/quote]

You're trying to fix something. You can get someone to not start smoking, but everyone has to eat. It's eating properly, in moderation, making sure alternatives are available etc. Your argument is extremely simplistic.

Now who is being black and white? I doubt any rational person would accuse me of defending the stupidity/ignorance of fundamentalist christianity (creationism) or Dubya. Calling America fat is a cheap shot, but more often then not it contains some truth.
Click to expand...

I was putting it into the terms of people who mock us. If someone is mocking us for doubting global warming or believing in creationism, they wouldn't put it in respectful terms.

I hope nobody is arguing that weight isn't stigmatized already. Just read this thread to prove that point quite easily.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you think I suggested that. I've made points of why it's already stigmatized on multiple occasions.
 
maybe people should police themselves there are people out there that cant offord to eat one meal if you can offord to eat 8 times a day doesnt mean you should.

Health ensurance companys could stop covering anyone who gets over 400 pounds then the government could cut all free aid to anyone over 400 pounds .
Then have an add campaign where they announce that there is no help after you reach 400 pounds .

If all that seems extreme how about the government cutting food stamps off completely to any family if one person is over 400 pounds? That seems more than reasonable to me.
 
[quote name='Skelah']maybe people should police themselves there are people out there that cant offord to eat one meal if you can offord to eat 8 times a day doesnt mean you should.

Health ensurance companys could stop covering anyone who gets over 400 pounds then the government could cut all free aid to anyone over 400 pounds .
Then have an add campaign where they announce that there is no help after you reach 400 pounds .

If all that seems extreme how about the government cutting food stamps off completely to any family if one person is over 400 pounds? That seems more than reasonable to me.[/QUOTE]

How is your final solution there in your last line less extreme exactly? If anything it's more extreme than your first idiotic ideas because then you are punishing an entire family, and essentially starving them all, because of just one person. How in the hell is that reasonable again? (Especially considering your opening line is people should police themselves...)
 
[quote name='Skelah']maybe people should police themselves there are people out there that cant offord to eat one meal if you can offord to eat 8 times a day doesnt mean you should.

Health ensurance companys could stop covering anyone who gets over 400 pounds then the government could cut all free aid to anyone over 400 pounds .
Then have an add campaign where they announce that there is no help after you reach 400 pounds .

If all that seems extreme how about the government cutting food stamps off completely to any family if one person is over 400 pounds? That seems more than reasonable to me.[/quote]

I think that would fail because then the 400 plussers will never lose weight, they will just get cut out of health care. Yet I do like your 'tough love' stance - the problem is obesity, it's so out-of-hand that a bunch of happyhead hugs and holding hands isn't going to cut it, we need to apply a market (wherein fat ppls start paying their fair share) and a blitz of hard-hitting informational advertising/programming.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, tax unhealthy food like they do in ontario (maybe canada, but at least ontario). Increase taxes on fast food, tax chips, cookies, chocolate etc. You create extra revenue to pay for the harm those foods cause, and if anything is left over you can use it for other things. This way people only pay when they make bad choices, they don't pay for simply being.

For the life of me I don't understand why people don't support that idea over punishing the person. Then again, maybe it's because we feel we just have to punish someone.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've said it before and I'll say it again, tax unhealthy food like they do in ontario (maybe canada, but at least ontario). Increase taxes on fast food, tax chips, cookies, chocolate etc. You create extra revenue to pay for the harm those foods cause, and if anything is left over you can use it for other things. This way people only pay when they make bad choices, they don't pay for simply being.

For the life of me I don't understand why people don't support that idea over punishing the person. Then again, maybe it's because we feel we just have to punish someone.[/quote]

I think it's a great idea. Who is not supporting the idea (besides hardcore libertarians and corporation-owned politicians)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've said it before and I'll say it again, tax unhealthy food like they do in ontario (maybe canada, but at least ontario). Increase taxes on fast food, tax chips, cookies, chocolate etc. You create extra revenue to pay for the harm those foods cause, and if anything is left over you can use it for other things. This way people only pay when they make bad choices, they don't pay for simply being.
[/QUOTE]

What becomes the standard for definition of "bad choices"? Some government scientist? Some private scientist funded by government grants? Some consensus that tells us the earth is the center of the universe? Who says chocolate is bad for you? Some scientists say it's good. Yesterday eggs were bad for you, today they are a healthy food. Yesterday a high fat diet was a direct cause of heart disease, today there has been no direct correlation. Is a glass of red wine a day healthy? Who gets the final say? The government or the individual? Your problem is that you think truth can be determined by a vote of the majority.

As usual, Alonzo will side on the power of government over the freedom of the individual to make his own choice. After all, we need someone to save us from ourselves. Better yet, alonzo, why don't we just forfeit all of our income to the government so they can buy us the right clothes, house, electric car, and oatmeal. Then all of our vices will assuredly be in check and no harm would come to us at all.

Oh, yeah, and Soylent Green is PEOPLE !!
 
[quote name='dopa345']Fat people are already disadvantaged enough. While I definitely would favor some sort of financial hit on smokers who are 100% accountable for their behavior, there can be many mitigating factors as to why some people are fat (and people do have to eat). However, they should not get any special treatment.

Anyway, what's the cutoff point for being "fat"? Over 50% of Americans are considered overweight based on BMI criteria.[/QUOTE]

BMI is a weird measure, and one that would indicate damn near everybody in the NFL is 'obese.' While I might not like to debate if any given offensive blockers are, on the average, I certainly wouldn't dare make that recommendation.

It's actually a pretty weak measure, since it's merely based upon a height/weight ratio. Any given height/weight combination (say someone who's 5'10" and 180#) can have a great deal of variation to it (i.e., a person with an excess of bodyfat would have a far different body size than someone with a lot of lean muscle mass), but their BMI would be identical. I don't know why anyone anywhere would use such a measure.

I know you weren't exactly defending the idea, but I just thought I'd point out what a poor notion BMI is.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']BMI is a weird measure, and one that would indicate damn near everybody in the NFL is 'obese.' While I might not like to debate if any given offensive blockers are, on the average, I certainly wouldn't dare make that recommendation.

It's actually a pretty weak measure, since it's merely based upon a height/weight ratio. Any given height/weight combination (say someone who's 5'10" and 180#) can have a great deal of variation to it (i.e., a person with an excess of bodyfat would have a far different body size than someone with a lot of lean muscle mass), but their BMI would be identical. I don't know why anyone anywhere would use such a measure.

I know you weren't exactly defending the idea, but I just thought I'd point out what a poor notion BMI is.[/QUOTE]

That was my point, how do you determine what is the cutoff point of being "fat"? BMI is a commonly used criteria in medical science to determine obesity and as you point out, it has a fair number of flaws. If you're going to go the course of financially penalizing people for being fat, how are you going to measure that?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've said it before and I'll say it again, tax unhealthy food like they do in ontario (maybe canada, but at least ontario). Increase taxes on fast food, tax chips, cookies, chocolate etc. You create extra revenue to pay for the harm those foods cause, and if anything is left over you can use it for other things. This way people only pay when they make bad choices, they don't pay for simply being.

For the life of me I don't understand why people don't support that idea over punishing the person. Then again, maybe it's because we feel we just have to punish someone.[/QUOTE]

So who decides what's "unhealthy"? Are you aware that some things may be unhealthy for some and just fine for others? And why are you so eager to put government's slimy hands over my food? Just leave people the fuck alone.

EDIT: Seeing bmulligan has already written a much better reply, I'll associate myself with that as well.
 
I'm 6'4" and 240. I'm supposedly morbidly obese but my chest is bigger around than my waist and I have a body fat of about 13-15%. Also, when I was in HS I was then same height and build as a lot of other kids and I weighed 40-50 more than all of them. My best guess is that I just have really dense bones due to martial arts as a kid and drinking a lot of milk. I've also never broken a bone.

[quote name='mykevermin']BMI is a weird measure, and one that would indicate damn near everybody in the NFL is 'obese.' While I might not like to debate if any given offensive blockers are, on the average, I certainly wouldn't dare make that recommendation.

It's actually a pretty weak measure, since it's merely based upon a height/weight ratio. Any given height/weight combination (say someone who's 5'10" and 180#) can have a great deal of variation to it (i.e., a person with an excess of bodyfat would have a far different body size than someone with a lot of lean muscle mass), but their BMI would be identical. I don't know why anyone anywhere would use such a measure.

I know you weren't exactly defending the idea, but I just thought I'd point out what a poor notion BMI is.[/quote]
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What becomes the standard for definition of "bad choices"? Some government scientist? Some private scientist funded by government grants? Some consensus that tells us the earth is the center of the universe? Who says chocolate is bad for you? Some scientists say it's good. Yesterday eggs were bad for you, today they are a healthy food. Yesterday a high fat diet was a direct cause of heart disease, today there has been no direct correlation. Is a glass of red wine a day healthy? Who gets the final say? The government or the individual? Your problem is that you think truth can be determined by a vote of the majority.

As usual, Alonzo will side on the power of government over the freedom of the individual to make his own choice. After all, we need someone to save us from ourselves. Better yet, alonzo, why don't we just forfeit all of our income to the government so they can buy us the right clothes, house, electric car, and oatmeal. Then all of our vices will assuredly be in check and no harm would come to us at all.

Oh, yeah, and Soylent Green is PEOPLE !![/quote]

LoL, yeah well you can't turn down hospital emergency room service for poor fat ppl now, can you. If you could then this might start making sense.
 
I stopped by a Wal-Mart somewhere along route 94 on my way to Detroit yesterday. Just for fun, I decided to keep track of everyone I saw and if they were fat. I included the employees.

Approximately half of the people I saw in the store were morbidly obese. When I say obese, I mean so fat that it affected their walking. These people were hobbling around like penguins and two of them were riding in those carts.

I find it hard to believe that genetics or a medical problem could account for so many people being in this condition.
 
You're being so insensitive to our cellulose-americans. :roll:

[quote name='Zing']I stopped by a Wal-Mart somewhere along route 94 on my way to Detroit yesterday. Just for fun, I decided to keep track of everyone I saw and if they were fat. I included the employees.

Approximately half of the people I saw in the store were morbidly obese. When I say obese, I mean so fat that it affected their walking. These people were hobbling around like penguins and two of them were riding in those carts.

I find it hard to believe that genetics or a medical problem could account for so many people being in this condition.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']I'm 6'4" and 240. I'm supposedly morbidly obese but my chest is bigger around than my waist and I have a body fat of about 13-15%. Also, when I was in HS I was then same height and build as a lot of other kids and I weighed 40-50 more than all of them. My best guess is that I just have really dense bones due to martial arts as a kid and drinking a lot of milk. I've also never broken a bone.[/QUOTE]

6'4" and 240 will put you at the upper tier of overweight, but you aren't considered obese. I'm 6'4" 230, hey fat ass, and i'm "overweight" too. Unless you live in Eastern Africa, just about everyone could benefit from losing a few pounds.

Here's a BMI calculator: http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
 
[quote name='Zing']I stopped by a Wal-Mart somewhere along route 94 on my way to Detroit yesterday. Just for fun, I decided to keep track of everyone I saw and if they were fat. I included the employees.

Approximately half of the people I saw in the store were morbidly obese. When I say obese, I mean so fat that it affected their walking. These people were hobbling around like penguins and two of them were riding in those carts.

I find it hard to believe that genetics or a medical problem could account for so many people being in this condition.[/QUOTE]

I really don't understand why people are so hung up about fat people. Yes, they may be visually unappealling but otherwise how is it affecting you? If they want to be fat, that's a result of their choices which thay have every right to make. However, they have to likewise accept that and not expect special treatment or be hypersensitive. Thus, if you take two seats on an airplane because of your size, then you pay for the second seat. If a doctor tells you you're obese and gives you medical advice to lose weight, you don't report him to the medical board for being "insensitive to patients" (this happened to a doctor in New Hampshire). If you're too big to fit into the hospital MRI scanner and I have to refer you to the vet school MRI (used for MRI's for zoo animals like elephants), don't get mad at me (a memorable patient interaction I had a few years ago).
 
[quote name='munch']6'4" and 240 will put you at the upper tier of overweight, but you aren't considered obese. I'm 6'4" 230, hey fat ass, and i'm "overweight" too. Unless you live in Eastern Africa, just about everyone could benefit from losing a few pounds.

Here's a BMI calculator: http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/[/QUOTE]

So of course "overweight" means anyone that weighs more than you ;)
 
[quote name='dopa345']However, they have to likewise accept that and not expect special treatment or be hypersensitive. Thus, if you take two seats on an airplane because of your size, then you pay for the second seat. If a doctor tells you you're obese and gives you medical advice to lose weight, you don't report him to the medical board for being "insensitive to patients" (this happened to a doctor in New Hampshire). If you're too big to fit into the hospital MRI scanner and I have to refer you to the vet school MRI (used for MRI's for zoo animals like elephants), don't get mad at me (a memorable patient interaction I had a few years ago).[/quote]

That's what really pisses me off. The superfat lady on tv who wanted to be "pampered" as a customer, even thought businesses are losing money on her because she can't fit in one plane seat/one already giganto-size movie seat/all of the cars designed by the comparitively fit Japanese.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What becomes the standard for definition of "bad choices"? Some government scientist? Some private scientist funded by government grants? Some consensus that tells us the earth is the center of the universe? Who says chocolate is bad for you? Some scientists say it's good. Yesterday eggs were bad for you, today they are a healthy food. Yesterday a high fat diet was a direct cause of heart disease, today there has been no direct correlation. Is a glass of red wine a day healthy? Who gets the final say? The government or the individual? [/quote]

Do you want to argue potato chips, chocolate etc. are healthy? You tax snack food. The excess stuff.

Though I think a scientist has a better grasp of what's healthy than the average person, you don't agree?

Your problem is that you think truth can be determined by a vote of the majority.
Click to expand...

You don't pay any attention to anything I have ever said, do you? I don't even think you pay attention to wrote you wrote a few sentences ago.

As usual, Alonzo will side on the power of government over the freedom of the individual to make his own choice. After all, we need someone to save us from ourselves. Better yet, alonzo, why don't we just forfeit all of our income to the government so they can buy us the right clothes, house, electric car, and oatmeal. Then all of our vices will assuredly be in check and no harm would come to us at all.
Click to expand...

Ya! I mean if I pay 1.00 for a candy bar then that's my choice, but if I pay 1.05 then I have no choice.

Does that make sense to you?

In your mind freedom is an end in and of itself. In my mind freedom is a means of improving society and giving people a better life. Those ideas result in very different methods of running society.

Taking 5%, or 3%, or whatever, for snack food is an insignificant infringement on freedom, if it's even that.
 
[quote name='munch']6'4" and 240 will put you at the upper tier of overweight, but you aren't considered obese. I'm 6'4" 230, hey fat ass, and i'm "overweight" too. Unless you live in Eastern Africa, just about everyone could benefit from losing a few pounds.

Here's a BMI calculator: http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/[/quote]

What is the BMI number supposed to be? % of body fat? I doubt that I'm 28% fat.

Additionally, that chart is of no real use to anyone seeing how the last time I looked at one it said I was overweight at 6'4" 220. The fatter people get the higher they bump the numbers. The same thing with clothing sizes.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The number is just an index. A BMI > 25 is considered overweight.[/quote]

Hmm.. well, I put as much stock in that as I would Enron. :roll:
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']In your mind freedom is an end in and of itself. In my mind freedom is a means of improving society and giving people a better life. Those ideas result in very different methods of running society.[/QUOTE]

This is very revealing. In my (and apparently bmulligan's) mind, yes, freedom is an end to itself. I want to be free to eat 50 Milky Ways a day if I wish. I want to be free to eat none. I want to make my own choices about it, just like about everything else that doesn't affect others. OTOH, you would like the government to decide what we should eat, thus "improving society" and "giving people a better life." So evidently you are against freedom to eat what you want, and would like a totalitarian regime that "improves society" by forcing people to eat what's "right" or "healthy" (at least as currently defined because we all know these things change every few years). Am I right, or are we misunderstanding you? Freedom through slavery?!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Seriously. BMI is total bullshit for a lot of people. I think I've posted this before in this forum, but Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered "obese" under the BMI standard.

http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/15112002/c5.shtml[/QUOTE]

BMI is a flawed measure but it is a good rough measure for the general population. How many people in the general population have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger? I just find it interesting that people are quick to attack/dismiss it when they apply it to themselves.
 
[quote name='dopa345']BMI is a flawed measure but it is a good rough measure for the general population. How many people in the general population have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger? I just find it interesting that people are quick to attack/dismiss it when they apply it to themselves.[/QUOTE]

No idea how many people are similar to Arnold, but don't really care. The point is it's not the be-all and end-all of measurements. And in the past 30 years they have moved the weight required to be "obese" down, down, and down some more, accounting for some (yet not all) of the increase in people being classified as "obese."

As for the last comment, if that was meant toward me, I wouldn't know as I haven't calculated mine. I couldn't even if I wanted to since I haven't weighed myself in quite some time (nor care to for that matter).
 
[quote name='dopa345']BMI is a flawed measure but it is a good rough measure for the general population. How many people in the general population have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger? I just find it interesting that people are quick to attack/dismiss it when they apply it to themselves.[/quote]

I was once 6'4" and 200 like the chart said I should be to be 'healthy' and I was passing out and always sick and you could see bones everywhere. Its a bullshit system.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I was once 6'4" and 200 like the chart said I should be to be 'healthy' and I was passing out and always sick and you could see bones everywhere. Its a bullshit system.[/QUOTE]Passing out? Bones everywhere? What the fuck man, I'm 6'3" 185, and I've never had those problems. :lol:
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Passing out? Bones everywhere? What the fuck man, I'm 6'3" 185, and I've never had those problems. :lol:[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing actually, Kayden must have been eating some major empty foods or something. In high school I was the stat guy for the basketball team (which is code for I sucked too much to make the team), I remember stating people's height/weight and we had a few guys that were between 6'3" and 6'5" and under 200 lbs without any of those problems (though there was one damn scrauny kid we had that was like 6'3 and 160 or something).
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I was thinking the same thing actually, Kayden must have been eating some major empty foods or something. In high school I was the stat guy for the basketball team (which is code for I sucked too much to make the team), I remember stating people's height/weight and we had a few guys that were between 6'3" and 6'5" and under 200 lbs without any of those problems (though there was one damn scrauny kid we had that was like 6'3 and 160 or something).[/quote]

Like I said, I'd be the same size and weigh about 40lbs more. The only thing I can think of is that I'm really dense. (Not :dunce: dense... :lol: )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top