ssoooo DB approves of fat people getting disability and so does Gaius Octavius.
alrighty then.
I do not agree with you or your reasoning.
I do not think the ADA should be modified for people who eat too much and move too little.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
That being said, there are also more and more studies each year that indicate that there is a distinct possibility that a huge factor in someone’s weight is genetic in nature and that essentially many people cannot “choose” to not be fat, only the extent to how fat they become. I’ve even heard of studies raising the possibility of an “obese” gene. Perhaps this woman’s disability doesn’t even boil down to choice as much as it does chance.
[/quote]
If genetics were the cause and not environmental factors, then why are there so many more fat people now than 40 years ago? Evolution doesn’t work that quickly.[/quote]
This is what I was thinking, and also, why do more Americans have that “gene” than anywhere else?
It’s a tough question though, did a disease cause the obesity or is the obesity the cause of the disease?
What about those women out there who want to be fat, and have documented themselves eating a case of doughnuts for breakfast? When they apply for disability, will it be granted as well? The one in the vid from NJ gets welfare now.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
ssoooo DB approves of fat people getting disability and so does Gaius Octavius.
alrighty then.
I do not agree with you or your reasoning.
I do not think the ADA should be modified for people who eat too much and move too little.
[/quote]
I do not think that fat people should get disability at all. I simply feel that it’s unfair to target fat people, regardless of why they are fat, when they aren’t the problem. The problem is the existence of these welfare payments to begin with. I think that most people here, if they get a payment of any kind from the govt, would take that payment. Has anyone here received a tax return and sent it back to the IRS? Has anyone here been laid off and refused to sign up for unemployment? I think not. So don’t single out fat people. That’s just an easy target that ignores the problem itself.
[quote]dianab wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
That being said, there are also more and more studies each year that indicate that there is a distinct possibility that a huge factor in someone’s weight is genetic in nature and that essentially many people cannot “choose” to not be fat, only the extent to how fat they become. I’ve even heard of studies raising the possibility of an “obese” gene. Perhaps this woman’s disability doesn’t even boil down to choice as much as it does chance.
[/quote]
If genetics were the cause and not environmental factors, then why are there so many more fat people now than 40 years ago? Evolution doesn’t work that quickly.[/quote]
This is what I was thinking, and also, why do more Americans have that “gene” than anywhere else?
It’s a tough question though, did a disease cause the obesity or is the obesity the cause of the disease?
What about those women out there who want to be fat, and have documented themselves eating a case of doughnuts for breakfast? When they apply for disability, will it be granted as well? The one in the vid from NJ gets welfare now.
[/quote]
Stop it! just stop it! just hating on those south of your border =)
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
ssoooo DB approves of fat people getting disability and so does Gaius Octavius.
alrighty then.
I do not agree with you or your reasoning.
I do not think the ADA should be modified for people who eat too much and move too little.
[/quote]
I do not think that fat people should get disability at all. I simply feel that it’s unfair to target fat people, regardless of why they are fat, when they aren’t the problem. The problem is the existence of these welfare payments to begin with. I think that most people here, if they get a payment of any kind from the govt, would take that payment. Has anyone here received a tax return and sent it back to the IRS? Has anyone here been laid off and refused to sign up for unemployment? I think not. So don’t single out fat people. That’s just an easy target that ignores the problem itself.[/quote]
Do you think that is what you clearly stated in your previous posts?
It wasn’t.
Try for some brevity next time, most things are simple.
DBCooper care to give my post a glance? Interested in hearing a reply…
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
ssoooo DB approves of fat people getting disability and so does Gaius Octavius.
alrighty then.
I do not agree with you or your reasoning.
I do not think the ADA should be modified for people who eat too much and move too little.
[/quote]
I do not think that fat people should get disability at all. I simply feel that it’s unfair to target fat people, regardless of why they are fat, when they aren’t the problem. The problem is the existence of these welfare payments to begin with. I think that most people here, if they get a payment of any kind from the govt, would take that payment. Has anyone here received a tax return and sent it back to the IRS? Has anyone here been laid off and refused to sign up for unemployment? I think not. So don’t single out fat people. That’s just an easy target that ignores the problem itself.[/quote]
Do you think that is what you clearly stated in your previous posts?
It wasn’t.
Try for some brevity next time, most things are simple.
[/quote]
It wasn’t stated clearly because that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make, which I have stated with brevity on three separate occasions now, is that fat people getting disability isn’t the problem. The problem is ANYONE receiving govt-funded disability and to simply point at fat people is unfair because you are basically saying that some are more deserving than others of disability payments, which means that you then have to place value on ALL disabilities which is an impossibility.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
ssoooo DB approves of fat people getting disability and so does Gaius Octavius.
alrighty then.
I do not agree with you or your reasoning.
I do not think the ADA should be modified for people who eat too much and move too little.
[/quote]
I do not think that fat people should get disability at all. I simply feel that it’s unfair to target fat people, regardless of why they are fat, when they aren’t the problem. The problem is the existence of these welfare payments to begin with. I think that most people here, if they get a payment of any kind from the govt, would take that payment. Has anyone here received a tax return and sent it back to the IRS? Has anyone here been laid off and refused to sign up for unemployment? I think not. So don’t single out fat people. That’s just an easy target that ignores the problem itself.[/quote]
Do you think that is what you clearly stated in your previous posts?
It wasn’t.
Try for some brevity next time, most things are simple.
[/quote]
It wasn’t stated clearly because that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make, which I have stated with brevity on three separate occasions now, is that fat people getting disability isn’t the problem. The problem is ANYONE receiving govt-funded disability and to simply point at fat people is unfair because you are basically saying that some are more deserving than others of disability payments, which means that you then have to place value on ALL disabilities which is an impossibility.[/quote]
Well I do not agree with you that no one should receive disability. But thank you for clarifying.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The problem is ANYONE receiving govt-funded disability and to simply point at fat people is unfair because you are basically saying that some are more deserving than others of disability payments, which means that you then have to place value on ALL disabilities which is an impossibility.[/quote]
Why?
We draw the line in society all the time. I don’t see why we can’t decide as a society which disabilities are deserving of government funding and which are not.
You’re making it seem like it’s once big slippery slope, it’s not.
We are going to draw lines on occasion it’s just a necessity.
I’ll use the example of Interracial Marriage. It use to be illegal and now it’s not. Just because we realized in the future that we were denying rights
and undid that law doesn’t mean we now have to allow every type of union people want to make. You don’t have to allow gays to get married just because you currently allow interracial couples to wed.
This is the same with the disability. My friend is on disability because of a birth defect (his legs on grew up to his knee cap and he uses prosthetics). Simply because you allow him disability does not mean you must now allow morbidly obese people the same right.
Silo 101:
I read your argument and I was tempted to go paragraph by paragraph to explain myself, but the totality of what that would entail caused me to have a small panic-attack, so I’ll be very…abbreviated. Actually I won’t appear to be, but believe me, this is an abbreviated version.
Your entire argument seems to generally stem from the assumption that I equate fat people who are “disabled” with someone who is disabled from a motorcycle accident, or any accident for that matter. I am not saying this at all. In fact, I’m saying the opposite. It is impossible to place a value on each and every disability and then dole out their payments accordingly. Also, if you examine some of the criteria that a motorcycle accident victim meets that qualifies him for disability payments, the same criteria can be met by some fat people, as I stated earlier.
You can turn that around as well. The same reasons that you say fat people should not get disability (choice vs. external factors) can be applied in part to motorcycle accident victims. This makes them similar, but in NO WAY does this make the two entities EQUAL in terms of who “deserves” what as far as disability goes.
I never said that it did, but you start off on that wrong assumption and further stray after that. In reality, we aren’t that far apart in opinion. I simply think the fact that we cannot place accurate value judgments on every last individual disability case (and probably not even differentiate on a more broad level either) combined with the fact that it makes absolutely no economic sense at all as outlined in excruciating detail earlier, means that we shouldn’t have disability for any of them. But this is unrealistic because there are probably always going to be enough people who benefit from transfers of wealth in this manner who also vote and we’ll always end up with some form of it.
So we may as well just set criteria that encompasses them all and give them equal, highly-reduced payments so as to avoid the whole blaming of fat people instead of the system itself. Because THAT is where the problem ultimately lies anyways: the system and the fact that people think these programs are economically-sound.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The problem is ANYONE receiving govt-funded disability and to simply point at fat people is unfair because you are basically saying that some are more deserving than others of disability payments, which means that you then have to place value on ALL disabilities which is an impossibility.[/quote]
Why?
We draw the line in society all the time. I don’t see why we can’t decide as a society which disabilities are deserving of government funding and which are not.
[/quote]
I’ll tell you why. Giving taxpayer-funded transfer payments in this manner has been empirically shown to be bad for the overall wealth of the economy. As the wealth of the economy grows, everybody’s individual economy grows. So we shouldn’t draw the line anywhere because NONE of them make sense.
Think about it: we have these payments in the first place because they can’t earn enough in the free market to support themselves, right? We assist them with their personal economy. Well, as stated earlier, without these programs in place there is actually more wealth being generated because now it isn’t simply being transferred to the disabled. This increase in wealth continues to fuel enough economic growth where wages and earning power and dollar-purchasing power are all high enough to support the disabled without any of these programs in place.
Of course, this just doesn’t come with only a cut in disability payments. If we would want to enact widespread economic change in this manner, but do so quickly, we’d have to eliminate SS, end Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment, govt subsidies of everything from education to farming, massively slash what are the world’s highest corporate tax rates at about 35% and a shitload of other stuff. Even then, you’d probably see a big shock to the system that only the ones who would make a killing on Wall Street as a result of what would probably be a wildly-speculative, very large rise in the market would be able to absorb. But then things would settle down. Fuck, who knows?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’re making it seem like it’s once big slippery slope, it’s not.
We are going to draw lines on occasion it’s just a necessity.
I’ll use the example of Interracial Marriage. It use to be illegal and now it’s not. Just because we realized in the future that we were denying rights
and undid that law doesn’t mean we now have to allow every type of union people want to make. You don’t have to allow gays to get married just because you currently allow interracial couples to wed.
This is the same with the disability. My friend is on disability because of a birth defect (his legs on grew up to his knee cap and he uses prosthetics). Simply because you allow him disability does not mean you must now allow morbidly obese people the same right.[/quote]
It’s not in the same league and it’s not even the same sport. What I’m talking about is pure economics. The economic solution is to end the payments entirely and let the economy’s natural growth absorb the loss of these payments on an individual basis. It’s not a slippery slope at all. There is no slope, line, tangent or anything like that. It’s just smart and dumb. The programs are dumb from the most basic of economic standpoints. All of them. So there’s no point in picking and choosing because even if it was possible to really place an accurate, fair value on each and every possible disability and choose which gets paid accordingly, you’d still be choosing a program that makes zero economic sense.
DB your previous posts mislead me with regards to your opinion but that doesn’t mean my last post was not justified, It adresses your previous arguments, all of which seemed to use the comparison to the bike accident as a defense for obese people getting disability. You probably should have made your opinion clearer earlier on.
[quote]Silo101 wrote:
DB your previous posts mislead me with regards to your opinion but that doesn’t mean my last post was not justified, It adresses your previous arguments, all of which seemed to use the comparison to the bike accident as a defense for obese people getting disability. You probably should have made your opinion clearer earlier on. [/quote]
I did. I’ve said it over and over again. It’s pointless to try to even figure out whether or not a biker deserves disability and a fat person does not, across the board. You have to take it on an individual basis if you really want to be “fair”.
Yes, a biker is more deserving than a fat person, by the criteria you have set. I don’t think either is deserving of anything that is taxpayer-funded, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that if you say a biker is deserving, then you are necessarily saying that someone else is not, in this case fat people. I would agree that the two are not anywhere close in terms of “worth”, but neither are they entirely separate cases because some fat people are not fat purely by choice and we don’t have a good way of differentiating between those that are and aren’t.
Again, your argument makes clear that there are differences that are large in magnitude between the two scenarios, and you are right. But you ignore the fact that as it stands now, they both do actually get disability. I don’t know who gets what, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that IF you want to say that fat people don’t get disability, then you have to justify it somehow. You have to make a choice. But think about it in real terms here. You exclude fatties, then another group is threatened due to legal precedents that may carry over to the next case. Then another. So you ruin the efficiency created by cutting due to the rising litigation costs.
So the only sensible thing is to cut them all, rather than futilely try to decide (before court decisions force you to make the decision, at a high cost to you) which ones are deserving and which are not.
[quote]Silo101 wrote:
DB your previous posts mislead me with regards to your opinion but that doesn’t mean my last post was not justified, It adresses your previous arguments, all of which seemed to use the comparison to the bike accident as a defense for obese people getting disability. You probably should have made your opinion clearer earlier on. [/quote]
Also, I just reread through my “previous posts” and I seriously don’t know how you could have missed my point or my opinion in any of them. Sure, they’re long as shit and all that, but if you took the time to read through them all it’s not like I’m speaking gibberish and calling it an opinion. It’s pretty clear what I’m saying. And if you didn’t read through the entirety of each and every one of them then you’re a jackass for criticizing me for not being clear enough.
I can see my life flashing before my eyes…
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pisses me off.
It’s something like getting disability for being a smoker.[/quote]
Or a manlet.
lol
[/quote]
stop this right now you are hurting yourself.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Well, as stated earlier, without these programs in place there is actually more wealth being generated because now it isn’t simply being transferred to the disabled. This increase in wealth continues to fuel enough economic growth where wages and earning power and dollar-purchasing power are all high enough to support the disabled without any of these programs in place.
[/quote]
Yes transfer payments can be a drain on the economy.
But how on earth will an increase in wages and PPP help someone unable to work? In order for someone to benefit they have to garner a wage in the first place.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I think it’s an issue when you say that the person got obese from making poor food choices and not exercising; I see that pre-condition being twisted into (for example): “My mental/emotional state led me to make such lifestyle choices…” etc. until it becomes a pre-condition that qualifies for even a perversion of an existing pre-condition for disability. At least, that’s the cynic in me seeing that.
OG,
What if she was given such assistance and a timeline for getting “better” so her capacity for work would be restored, and then her wages were garnished to counter the state aid she received during the that time?
Throwing out a hypothetical, please don’t attack me ;)[/quote]
I don’t know about the timeline. That could be a good solution. But just think, won’t they lose to keep the benefits and then what? They succeed and there is no more free money so won’t they just put the weight back on to get the benefits again?
asshole (I kid! I kid!)
[/quote]
That’s a good point, but I didn’t flesh out my “solution” because I’m not aware of any fail safes employed by other countries. I’m curious what could be done in that vein, though.
Yes, I think community service is a good idea. We can have them wear jump suits in a color they hate, too, since shame is a great negative incentive for putting themselves in that position gain.[/quote]
Why is working for what you receive a shameful act? Hyperbole isn’t always a good thing. After the Depression the Works programs for the unemployed actually restored their self esteem and pride in working for what they earn. There was more shame for that generation, in taking a handout.
I don’t have a solution. Since health problems do impact the economy also maybe assistance and education is a better way. [/quote]
I didn’t mean that working is a shameful act, just that the psychological negative incentive of having to do community service because you need assistance COULD be a deterrent…that is, if it’s determined that more people abuse the system than not. It works.