Let's blame the fat people for global warming! - Page 11 - Political Fever

xjoe3x · #**101** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:31 PM

About all this what the body needs stuff.

What the body needs is completely unimportant.
The need can vary depending on the work done.
More work needs more calories.

After that you are buying a luxury.
A good example would be extra clothes. You could get buy on very few clothes, but most do not. It is not need but want. Many of our wants(extra clothes, video games, software, hardware, the list is very long) produce the same waste more or less. I do not know anyone that wants to survive on just what they need. The waste argument falls apart.

The only other thing is people wanting to dictate other people's health. I support others choosing there health. I am not sure OE but I would bet insurance for obese people is already higher, which is fine because they are more of a risk.

xjoe3x · #**102** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

No, it is taxation that favors certain products, it has nothing to do with what company makes those products.

The entire tax code needs to be caudited and cleaned. But that is a different topic.

Government playing favorites. Playing favorites to certain companies. The companies that produce certain foods are going to have more trouble competing. Hersey for example. Most certainly hurting there ability to compete.

Oregon Elephant · #**103** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

About all this what the body needs stuff.

What the body needs is completely unimportant.
The need can vary depending on the work done.
More work needs more calories.

Yes, but when the body needs more calories and you eat more calories, you stay healthy and fit. When people eat into obesity, it is because they are eating more calories than their individual body needs.

Quote:

After that you are buying a luxury.
A good example would be extra clothes. You could get buy on very few clothes, but most do not. It is not need but want. Many of our wants(extra clothes, video games, software, hardware, the list is very long) produce the same waste more or less. I do not know anyone that wants to survive on just what they need. The waste argument falls apart.

The "waste" argument is not a cover all. Clothes are realtively long term items (compared to food) and many people recycle their clothes (goodwill, salvation army). Most clothes also don't come with all the wrappers and bags that food comes with. So the comparison (if we really wanted to) is not all that similar.

Quote:

The only other thing is people wanting to dictate other people's health. I support others choosing there health. I am not sure OE but I would bet insurance for obese people is already higher, which is fine because they are more of a risk.

It is higher, but it still effects other people's rates. On the insurance papers, they cannot tell the difference between an obese person (like 6ft 1, 300 lbs) and a large muscluar healthy person (like 6ft 2, 280 lbs), so they get grouped together and basically share rates.

Also, with insurance as a choice, and hospitals morally responsible to accept everyone, whether they can pay or not, unhealthy people create a large financial burden on hosiptals, which is then passed to insurance companies, which is then passed to everyone.

Oregon Elephant · #**104** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Government playing favorites. Playing favorites to certain companies. The companies that produce certain foods are going to have more trouble competing. Hersey for example. Most certainly hurting there ability to compete.

Part of the thing about competition is the need to be able to adapt. When a competitor enters the playing field, you have to adapt to survive. When the rules change, you have to adapt to survive. Hersey can continue to make their candy, as all their competitors (that make candy) will be effected as well. But they can also adapt and make something new, like a healthier candy that still sweet and tasty and not so bad for the body. If they can't adjust, they fall, that is the nature of capitalism and competition. They should be use to it by now.

Chan · #**105** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Yes, but when the body needs more calories and you eat more calories, you stay healthy and fit. When people eat into obesity, it is because they are eating more calories than their individual body needs.

That is not being disputed. What is being disputed is that this, in itself, causes global warming and that you or anyone else have the right to dictate to others that they cannot be gluttons. It is hypocritical, assuming you support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, to support that right while wanting to legislate against people becoming obese.

Quote:

The "waste" argument is not a cover all. Clothes are realtively long term items (compared to food) and many people recycle their clothes (goodwill, salvation army). Most clothes also don't come with all the wrappers and bags that food comes with. So the comparison (if we really wanted to) is not all that similar.

But many of our clothes are made from organic materials, e.g. cotton. So, more clothes requires more organic materials or, in the case of synthetics, more chemicals and other substances (the production of which pollutes the environment).

Quote:

It is higher, but it still effects other people's rates. On the insurance papers, they cannot tell the difference between an obese person (like 6ft 1, 300 lbs) and a large muscluar healthy person (like 6ft 2, 280 lbs), so they get grouped together and basically share rates.

No, what affects other people's rates is the conscious choice made by the people running insurance companies to pass on these costs to other consumers.

Quote:

Also, with insurance as a choice, and hospitals morally responsible to accept everyone, whether they can pay or not, unhealthy people create a large financial burden on hosiptals, which is then passed to insurance companies, which is then passed to everyone.

Again, this is a conscious choice made by real people. Don't try to play this off as something that somehow just magically happens all by itself.

xjoe3x · #**106** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Yes, but when the body needs more calories and you eat more calories, you stay healthy and fit. When people eat into obesity, it is because they are eating more calories than their individual body needs.

The "waste" argument is not a cover all. Clothes are realtively long term items (compared to food) and many people recycle their clothes (goodwill, salvation army). Most clothes also don't come with all the wrappers and bags that food comes with. So the comparison (if we really wanted to) is not all that similar.

It is higher, but it still effects other people's rates. On the insurance papers, they cannot tell the difference between an obese person (like 6ft 1, 300 lbs) and a large muscluar healthy person (like 6ft 2, 280 lbs), so they get grouped together and basically share rates.

Also, with insurance as a choice, and hospitals morally responsible to accept everyone, whether they can pay or not, unhealthy people create a large financial burden on hosiptals, which is then passed to insurance companies, which is then passed to everyone.

That was just one example. It is an example of luxuries. We could survive on very basic food. Most of the food we eat is a luxury, a want. Extra clothes were just one example. Here are some more: Energy drinks. Many books. Carpeting. Many paints. Air conditioning. Heat in many cases. You see where I am going. These are luxuries that create waste.

I would think they would look at the medical records and see if the doctor diagnosed the applicant as obese.

That goes for many other things as well. That would be a problem with the hospital system. I think that is no excuse to dictate everyone's health.

xjoe3x · #**107** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Part of the thing about competition is the need to be able to adapt. When a competitor enters the playing field, you have to adapt to survive. When the rules change, you have to adapt to survive. Hersey can continue to make their candy, as all their competitors (that make candy) will be effected as well. But they can also adapt and make something new, like a healthier candy that still sweet and tasty and not so bad for the body. If they can't adjust, they fall, that is the nature of capitalism and competition. They should be use to it by now.

It will give health food an unfair advantage.
The nature of capitalism is not government favoritism.
It is competition in the market.

Oregon Elephant · #**108** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

That was just one example. It is an example of luxuries. We could survive on very basic food. Most of the food we eat is a luxury, a want. Extra clothes were just one example. Here are some more: Energy drinks. Many books. Carpeting. Many paints. Air conditioning. Heat in many cases. You see where I am going. These are luxuries that create waste.

And in each case (to be looked at individually), we should look at the pros and cons, the benefits to the negatives.

Quote:

I would think they would look at the medical records and see if the doctor diagnosed the applicant as obese.

That wasn't one of the questions on my health insurace application. I don't know what it is like with other companies or other states, though.

Quote:

That goes for many other things as well. That would be a problem with the hospital system. I think that is no excuse to dictate everyone's health.

I see our choices as do nothing, allow hospitals to turn people away, or legislate. I think the 3rd is the best option for society.

Oregon Elephant · #**109** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

It will give health food an unfair advantage.
The nature of capitalism is not government favoritism.
It is competition in the market.

I would disagree that the advantage is "unfair." I could argue that the addictive properties of chocolate give it an unfair advantage. The thing is, I would support giving health foods an advantage (whether you see it as unfair or not) in order to promote that food. It's just promoting food that is better for you. True, that is not capitalism (I was being loosing satiristic, even if it wasn't very good), but that is not reason not to do it. I'm not going to support something just because it is capitalistic, nor am I going to support something just because it is not capitalistic.

Oregon Elephant · #**110** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan

That is not being disputed. What is being disputed is that this, in itself, causes global warming and that you or anyone else have the right to dictate to others that they cannot be gluttons. It is hypocritical, assuming you support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, to support that right while wanting to legislate against people becoming obese.

"assuming you support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body," uh, if you're refering to abortion, I'm strongly against it. If you're refering to prostitution, you don't know my reasoning. But in either case, those are for different threads.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password