|
euphronius posted:You pay an extra percentage of income tax equal to the amount over your ideal bmi.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
wiregrind posted:increase the tax exponentially if it's an irresponsible parent giving health problems to their kid A reminder that both of these proposals will disproportionately target poor minority women.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
I would be fine with a sin tax on foodstuffs completely absent of nutrition, like soda or candy. Heck, just removing the "this is food" qualifier from them would make then taxable in most places. I don't think this would do much, though. Regulation of portion size is almost as useless. Some few people might think twice about ordering a second portion/meal, but most wouldn't. We've already been convinced that serving sizes listed on products are both totally arbitrary and complete horseshit. The idea floated upthread about hitting foods that have certain calorie/nutrient/mass ratios seems intriguing at first glance, but in practice it would be a nightmare of loopholes. Serving size one Oreo comes to mind. What about buying a bag of sugar in the baking aisle? Ingredients are except, you say? Well this cheesecake is just an ingredient in the DQ Blizzard recipe printed inside the box! No more tax/labeling. Oops. It's all very regressive and punitive anyhow. Add more and better health information in schools. Provide everyone 18+ with free dietician consultations, and charge a fee for not going to them, Obamacare style. Make sure they are available at all hours or make people legally unpunishable at work for going, like jury duty. We can call them Life Panels. The Bloop fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
My very first quote is not edit, after all these years! Thanks phone posting! For content: on fat acceptance: we should be respectful and polite to all people. We should not be respectful of all ideas. The idea that a 400 pound, five foot tall woman is healthy is not a respectable idea and should not be treated as merely a different opinion or preference. The Bloop fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A reminder that both of these proposals will disproportionately target poor minority women. Well then I don't know. Maybe a good media / education campaign instead, to sensitize parents, so they in turn educate their kids about diet and nutrition. Availability of government funded health programs for obese and overweight people. Also I think making clear in media and other public stuff the difference between underweight, a normal BMI range, overweight and obese. Push for positive body images in the bmi range or just slightly over it, but don't justify obesity. To be honest if anyone would benefit from normalized obesity, it would be capitalist corporations. wiregrind fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You pay an extra percentage of income tax equal to the amount over your ideal bmi. Do we get deductions if we're under our ideal bmi?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A reminder that both of these proposals will disproportionately target poor minority women. Combine it with universal food stamps, or better yet, a universal basic income
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Combine it with universal food stamps, or better yet, a universal basic income These are both good ideas. After getting off food stamps, I realized that I was actually putting more consideration into eating cheap rather than healthy since that money could go to other things. Giving food-only money to everyone would promote health, and it would make it more acceptable to disinclude certain consumables like soda and candy from the program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Do we get deductions if we're under our ideal bmi? e: Universal food stamps would be pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Again you're going to unfairly punish fit people as a solution for obesity, it's entirely unworkable and impractical. Smoking a pack of cigarettes is pretty much objectively bad, eating a large portioned meal is in no way objectively bad. Again every law ultimately requires people to make sacrifices who were never going to hurt society/be irresponsible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:21
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Again every law/proposal requires people to make sacrifices who were never going to hurt society/be irresponsible. You're talking about literally punishing people for being fitness enthusiasts. Refer back to my comment about banning cars, it's hilariously impractical and it's never going to happen, thank god.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Again every law ultimately requires people to make sacrifices who were never going to hurt society/be irresponsible. Making those sacrifices to simply rid the world of people you don't find sexually attractive doesn't seem worth it in my view.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Do we get deductions if we're under our ideal bmi? No because the goal isn't an anorexyc population
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Making those sacrifices to simply rid the world of people you don't find sexually attractive doesn't seem worth it in my view. I think it is more about saving people from themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Making those sacrifices to simply rid the world of people you don't find sexually attractive doesn't seem worth it in my view.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Making those sacrifices to simply rid the world of people you don't find sexually attractive doesn't seem worth it in my view. Why do us it always come down to sex for ya'll
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Making those sacrifices to simply rid the world of people you don't find sexually attractive doesn't seem worth it in my view. Cole posted:I think it is more about saving people from themselves. Yeeeep. Name anything, any enumerated right, we wouldn't make a limited exception to if it was killing hundreds of thousands and/or millions per year. If screaming "I HATE JEWS" on Youtube was psychically slaying people at this rate and racking up a Holocaust 2.0 every few years we'd pass hate speech laws yesterday. 2000+ calorie diets don't even rate. Get over your loving self.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:You're talking about literally punishing people for being fitness enthusiasts. Refer back to my comment about banning cars, it's hilariously impractical and it's never going to happen, thank god. So make a body fat percentage exception to our BMI law/sin tax. John Cena & Co. will be safe. And if they're not, again, any right we'd make an exception to at this rate of death. Eating past a certain point per day isn't even on that same level so they don't even begin to warrant consideration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeeeep. Name anything, any enumerated right, we wouldn't make a limited exception to if it was killing hundreds of thousands and/or millions per year. If screaming "I HATE JEWS" on Youtube was psychically slaying people at this rate and racking up a Holocaust 2.0 every few years we'd pass hate speech laws yesterday. 2000+ calorie diets don't even rate. Get over your loving self. You've spent the whole loving thread disrespecting overweight people. You don't get to tell others here to get over themselves. You don't care about their welfare, you just want a group of people to poo poo all over to make you feel good about yourself. Anyone clicking on the ? under your name can see this for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeeeep. Name anything, any enumerated right, we wouldn't make a limited exception to if it was killing hundreds of thousands and/or millions per year. If screaming "I HATE JEWS" on Youtube was psychically slaying people at this rate and racking up a Holocaust 2.0 every few years we'd pass hate speech laws yesterday. 2000+ calorie diets don't even rate. Get over your loving self. How many deaths per year, at minimum, do you need to restrict a right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
The Larch posted:How many deaths per year, at minimum, do you need to restrict a right? Probably the same amount as it takes to restrict the right to own firearms. my point is there is a precedent to restricting rights, or at least wanting to, that I would bet you support, based on the number of lives it costs
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Cole posted:Probably the same amount as it takes to restrict the right to own firearms. Thank you for telling me what my opinions are and why I have them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Thank you for telling me what my opinions are and why I have them. You're welcome. Maybe I misunderstood your tone. You should be a dick about it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because in most other situations "personal responsibility" will brand you as a Libertarian. It's kind of hard to see why it wouldn't here, especially since this is an issue that's highly correlated with poverty. The problem is that when people promote "personal responsibility" as a solution for anything, it's usually in the context of shaming people for making sub-optimal life choices while doing dick-all to address any factors which may be getting in the way of good life choices. Not once has that sort of strategy proven to be remotely effective. It's like abstinence-only sex ed - it'd work perfectly if everybody just up and chose to follow your advice, but actually expecting them to do so is laughably unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Do we get deductions if we're under our ideal bmi? No only moral satisfaction and the right to mock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:It's like abstinence-only sex ed - it'd work perfectly if everybody just up and chose to follow your advice, but actually expecting them to do so is laughably unrealistic. This analogy doesn't work the way you think it does. If 'unprotected sex with strangers' is 'eating anything and everything you want', then 'abstinence' is the equivalent to 'starve yourself to a sub-20 BMI!'. Sex-education that emphasizes appropriate protection is where you want to be and that is our 'portion control'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
The Larch posted:How many deaths per year, at minimum, do you need to restrict a right? What's your standard I guess I'd ask? Working under the assumption that there's an enumerated right to stuff yourself, which there isn't. Solkanar512 posted:You've spent the whole loving thread disrespecting overweight people. You don't get to tell others here to get over themselves. You don't care about their welfare, you just want a group of people to poo poo all over to make you feel good about yourself. Anyone clicking on the ? under your name can see this for themselves. EE: like I can't emphasize this enough. Legalizing literal murder would get fewer killed annually short of organized genocide. Try to be consistent. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:This analogy doesn't work the way you think it does. If 'unprotected sex with strangers' is 'eating anything and everything you want', then 'abstinence' is the equivalent to 'starve yourself to a sub-20 BMI!'. Sex-education that emphasizes appropriate protection is where you want to be and that is our 'portion control'. Except in this analogy your sex ed is "condoms exist, but you'll have to figure out where to buy them and oh there's also a million different versions, of which a significant proportion are fakes". Actually birth control would probably be a better stand in for condoms, but same idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
What's weird is that nobody wants to normalize alcoholism. Nobody wants to demand people respect cigarette smoking. Yet we're increasingly supposed to not acknowledge that someone who is obese is living a horribly unhealthy lifestyle and is slowly killing themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Another reason is probably a change in the regularity of meals and in the availability of food. A hundred years ago people more often than today ate calorie-heavy meals mostly in a fixed schedule, probably taking more time and therefore giving the body more time to be satisfied with smaller portions*. Most food had to be prepared and was not instantly available, except for fruit which is low in calories, so snacking in between meals was not as "dangerous" as it is nowadays. *Seriously, try this out! If you eat deliberately slower you'll need to eat much less to sate your appetite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:What's weird is that nobody wants to normalize alcoholism. Nobody wants to demand people respect cigarette smoking. Yet we're increasingly supposed to not acknowledge that someone who is obese is living a horribly unhealthy lifestyle and is slowly killing themselves. Reminder that smoking cigarettes used to be perceived as cool and edgy, thanks in no small part to a massive marketing campaign by Big Tobacco that paid Hollywood lots of money to have their actors smoke during filming. It was only after overwhelming evidence surfaced regarding its harm that we decided to change our attitudes towards it. Still, smoking is categorically different from being obese in my opinion, because second-hand smoke is very harmful. Whereas obese people mostly harm only themselves. Alcohol is kind of in between, in the sense that you drinking alcohol doesn't harm those around you, but if you drive while drunk then you become a danger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
I decided to look at some of the worst offenders of HAES and I was curious if somebody more well informed than me could look at a post like this and its links and tell me if there's anything that sets off alarm bells. http://thisisthinprivilege.org/post/132510708280/bigfatscience-youhateyourfat-uppity-broad-i#notes (There was already stuff posted up thread about the metabolic health thing I believe)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
quote:Also, the look that is “in” right now is women who look like they have less body fat than Bruce Lee. How sustainable is that? Human bodies need fat to live and to thrive, so having a surgeon flush away all your adipose tissue like some unwanted growth might not be the best plan. Apparently having fat is seen as a worse fate than shaving off years off your lifespan. And many celebrities choose to pay surrogates and wear fake pregnancy bellies in order to preserve their enviable shape… which would be alright in itself, if the same celebrities didn’t milk the new motherhood status for all it was worth in “My pregnancy journey” and “How I got my body back post baby” cover stories. Dear god this website is even worse than I expected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:What's weird is that nobody wants to normalize alcoholism. Nobody wants to demand people respect cigarette smoking. Yet we're increasingly supposed to not acknowledge that someone who is obese is living a horribly unhealthy lifestyle and is slowly killing themselves. Probably because the obese are targets for abuse and you can't just not be obese while you're out and then be obese at home. When people want to "acknowledge that someone who is obese is living a horribly unhealthy lifestyle" it's often either a smokescreen to put people down or hard to distinguish from someone doing that. That's why we get people who are so defensive they can't even acknowledge there are health risks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
Trent posted:I would be fine with a sin tax on foodstuffs completely absent of nutrition, like soda or candy. Heck, just removing the "this is food" qualifier from them would make then taxable in most places. So you want a sin tax based on a lie, and to further lie more. Ok. Let's be real here, as doing a tax on drinks that are like sodas would also apply to most juices, whether fresh from the fruit or not, most coffees people buy, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
As difficult as it might be to get a society more physically fit, as a whole, it's gotta be a whole lot easier than correcting thin privilege or whatever. Human beings are wired to like, trust, and respect beautiful people more and body weight/shape is a major component of physical beauty. Of course no one should be lovely to a person because they're fat, and shaming doesn't help. Really though most people are never going to think this HAES stuff isn't a joke, even if they themselves are fat. FWIW I think education is the best way to combat obesity. Forcing changes in food labeling, minimum wage increases, and state supported fitness centers would help a lot, too. Regular exercise and the maintenance of a good diet is literally hygiene and should be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I decided to look at some of the worst offenders of HAES and I was curious if somebody more well informed than me could look at a post like this and its links and tell me if there's anything that sets off alarm bells. There's no way I'm clicking all those links, but in general, most HAES statements are backed by proper scientific research that just happens to be grossly misrepresented. For example, try clicking the link in "long term weight loss is not possible," and you'll find that the actual research just says "most people on diets eventually gain their weight back after they go off the diet." Cobble together enough half-truths and omissions, and its very easy to construct a narrative that you can genuinely believe is not a lie. It also baffles me just how hostile this person gets about others losing weight. I have a lot of friends who smoke, and they're always super enthusiastic and supportive when someone quits smoking, which they usually do by joining a support group. It's more than fair to say we shouldn't be lovely to fat people, but if you're lovely to people who are trying to lose weight, you are also an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you want a sin tax based on a lie, and to further lie more. Ok. Let's be real here, as doing a tax on drinks that are like sodas would also apply to most juices, whether fresh from the fruit or not, most coffees people buy, and so on. Did you read my entire post or just sprain your finger mashing the quote button as soon as you saw something objectionable? Are you unable to discern tone and notice context? I said I would be "OK" with it, meaning I wouldn't put any real energy into fighting it, but that it probably wouldn't help. Yes, it might also apply to most juice and almost certainly should apply to 1200 kcal bottled Starbucks drinks. I went on to say that regulation like that is pretty stupid and useless and that free and heavily incentivised professional medical advice would probably work best. I'm on your side. loving chill
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
To me the fundamental problem with regulations on "lovely food" is that there's no such thing as objectively lovely food. There are definitely objectively lovely diets, which comprise lots of different foods in various amounts. But for every type of junk food, it's likely possible to incorporate it into an overall healthy diet, because all junk foods/drinks contain some form of nutrition. Therefore it's basically impossible to build a sound case for regulations on specific junk foods (unless they are just filled with toxins or heavy metals, and we already have laws for that). And the prospect of regulating people's overall diets is obviously not going to get any traction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:What's your standard I guess I'd ask? Working under the assumption that there's an enumerated right to stuff yourself, which there isn't. quote:The current system kills millions, mine doesn't. Stop trying to distract from that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:43
|
|