The article seems to be suggesting that fat people are contributing to global warming. We don't care if India, China and the rest of the third world pollute the air with their factories that don't have pollution controls but let's go after the fat people because they use more fuel than skinny people.

Latest global warming factor: Obesity - Climate Change - MSNBC.com

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I read the article and I agree with your assessment, Chan. I found this statement to be ridiculous Although I'd like to lose a few pounds, I don't feel a sense of global responsibility regarding my weight or anything else. This premise of global responsibility is silly.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

The article makes a good point: obese people ARE a burden and an unnecessary strain. Their excessive consumption increases pollution and resource use disproportionately. Not only is it bad for them, it's bad for society to eat yourself into a stupor. What makes this grotesque situation worse is that it's entirely controllable for the majority of obese individuals if they would simply---stop eating so much. Their increased food intake raises demand, and they cost moer to transport, which increases problems of pollution, fuel use, etc.

This is one reason I advocate state-backed fat taxes that raise junk food costs.

I wish we could institute some type of national service programme that gets people exercise. By 2015, as they indicate, we will have 700 million Jabba the huts to piss resources on frivolously in addition to 2 billion overweight people alone. This is truly epidemic. And unnecessary. When people have freedom, they abuse it, because they are obviously too stupid to act responsibly, as I have said.

Then you have additional problems of arrogant people who just don't care, as in the other thread where one guy was proud of his gluttony and waste.

Why the hell do you have so much damned hatred for freedom????? Who do you think you are to decide that certain groups of people are a burden and should be dealt with? How about we decide that you damned government-loving, freedom-hating nanny-staters are a burden on society and start rounding you all up and shipping you off to Guantanamo?

One could argue that, since you (presumably) live in a "first world" nation that your "excessive consumption increases pollution and resource use disproportionately. Not only is it bad for [you], it's bad for society to eat yourself into a stupor. What makes this grotesque situation worse is that it's entirely controllable for the majority of [first world] individuals if they would simply---stop [consuming] so much."

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Chan, it gets really annoying when everytime someone makes a comment that you don't like, you rip on them calling them "damned government-loving, freedom-hating nanny-staters." These are personal attacks and we would ask you to stop making them.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I was surprised to read this because I cannot comprehend that mindset. I'm going to rewrite it twice to make a point:

Old people ARE a burden and an unnecessary strain. Their excessive use of medical care and pharmaceuticals increases costs for the rest of us and resource use disproportionately. Not only is it bad for them, it's bad for society to subsidize them. What makes this grotesque situation worse is that it's entirely controllable for the majority of old people if they would simply---stop using health care. Their increased use of drugs and doctors raises demand, and it costs more to transport and deliver drugs, which increases problems of pollution, fuel use, etc.

Babies ARE a burden and an unnecessary strain. Their excessive consumption of toys and disposable diapers increases pollution and resource use disproportionately. What makes this grotesque situation worse is that it's entirely controllable for the majority of individuals if they would simply---stop breeding. Their breeding raises demand for toys, baby formula, and diapers, and it costs more to transport and deliver these goods, which increases problems of pollution, fuel use, etc. of pollution, fuel use, etc.

I know these sentiments sound ridiculous, but that is how the post I quoted above struck me.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

There is a difference in that a baby doesn't choose to be a baby (same with the old person) and they have absolutely no control over their age and how their body ages. Obese people do have a choice and choose to be obese (though to be fair, there are a few that actually have conditions that prevent them from sliming down) and so they are choosing to be a strain on society.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

And some people choose to continue living in first world nations (nations like the US). To quote Techno, "Their excessive consumption increases pollution and resource use disproportionately." To follow his argument, we should impose the kinds of vile policies Techno advocates on all of the first world nations.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

The adjectives are accurate. These people do have this seeming love for government and have this seeming hatred for individual freedom (since they want government to have so much control over people's lives) and they do believe in a government that provides all kinds of social programs that take care of people essentially from cradle to grave. You're reading "personal attack" into those adjectives.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

And, he's off!

We live in the most free nation ever created, Chan. Your constant effort to turn any sort of control or restriction into an oppressive, totalitarian state is just absurdist hyperbole.

It's not about "hating freedom". It's about responsibly recognizing that freedom can be abused and putting some basic limitations on utter anarchy, so those freedoms are maximized and guaranteed. The only reason government has to "nanny", as you put it, is when the people clearly demonstrate a lack of self-control...we tend to earn the laws we live under. If people always did the moral, intelligent, correct thing, we wouldn't need much governance at all.

All that said, I think legislation on fatness is idiotic. It's a serious problem, to be sure, but legislation probably isn't the best way to address it.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.