[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
… this is about disability and someone receiving disability because they ate and ate and ate and didn’t move.
[/quote]
THIS is the essence of the entire issue.
EDIT: Haha…“ESSENCE” - I just noticed “ESSEN” is in that word… which means “EAT” in German.
lol
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SSC wrote:
Edited because it’s not worth it. I’m guessing everyone on this thread is a perfect physical specimen who has never taken advantage of anything in their lives and is a moral saint.[/quote]
You do not have to be a moral saint to understand that institutionalized subsidies of quite common flaws are a bad idea, in fact, being a bit of a prick helps.
Also, it may well be that people find her behavior especially repulsive because they recognize it in themselves and do not particularily like it, but be glad that they have not all succumbed to the siren song of the public teat or else women like her would simply starve for lack of resources.
It might take a while though. [/quote]
question:
Is it the morality of subsiding someone to in essence kill themselves…
–or–
is it the money.
If it is the money, the entire budget for human in the us is far less then for organizations and corporations. So start the cuts on the Corporations, after all they are people too…
Me,
I’m opposed to subsidizing any bad choice, while providing a safety net for those who can’t get by at the moment… Implementation would be hard, determining who truly needs help and who needs to do for themselves.
AND
I am horrifically opposed to subsidizing private companies. New stadium, build it your damn selves… Banks: they have been bailed out several times in our history. For a total greater then their total profits.
OG, back to the fat broad for a minute, can’t she do SOMETHING?
My boyfriend’s ex sits on her ass answering the phone from home all day in customer service or something, and although she’s not obese, she is generally useless but still manages to kinda have a job. Is the woman you know so fat she can’t answer the phone even?
I don’t get how people can live like that, take government money and sit and marinate all day.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[/quote]
So, if I paid someone to dig a ditch in the morning and fill it up again in the afternoon, would I stimulate the economy?
[/quote]
In the sense that then that person would have money to spend out in the world and YES that would stimulate the economy.
[/quote]
But that money must come from somewhere and if I am the government I must necessarily take it from someone else.
So, I take it from someone who is actually productive, i.e., produces stuff that people actually want and give it to someone who is doing something that noone in his right mind would pay for.
Is the economy now better or worse off?
[/quote]
Here’s where the argument fails…
Money is indeed created out of nothing.
How many times it changes hands in a given amount of time is not fixed.
x dollars changing hands y times… Both x and y are entirely variable.
How ever people like to take complex systems and simplify it down to what they see every day.
These arguments play into the both the fallacy of aggregation and disaggregation, and are in essence a straw man.
What intrigues me, is why people build such elaborate belief structures in the first place.
I think this will probably end up hurting most fat people when employers realize it’s something of a risk hiring obese or even very overweight individuals for positions.
And I imagine it already is a disadvantage to be fat with regards to employment. Looks DO matter in many types of jobs. And they matter on a general level too; being extremely unattractive will put people off to some extent including at work.
In essence, not only will this hurt people who aren’t fat, who have to foot the bill should it become a trend, but it will also hurt fat people in the long run. Lose-lose for everyone involved.
I kind of just went to the last page so if it has been mentioned my bad.
At least there’ll be more parking spaces for me 
[quote]Null wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[/quote]
So, if I paid someone to dig a ditch in the morning and fill it up again in the afternoon, would I stimulate the economy?
[/quote]
In the sense that then that person would have money to spend out in the world and YES that would stimulate the economy.
[/quote]
But that money must come from somewhere and if I am the government I must necessarily take it from someone else.
So, I take it from someone who is actually productive, i.e., produces stuff that people actually want and give it to someone who is doing something that noone in his right mind would pay for.
Is the economy now better or worse off?
[/quote]
Here’s where the argument fails…
Money is indeed created out of nothing.
How many times it changes hands in a given amount of time is not fixed.
x dollars changing hands y times… Both x and y are entirely variable.
How ever people like to take complex systems and simplify it down to what they see every day.
These arguments play into the both the fallacy of aggregation and disaggregation, and are in essence a straw man.
What intrigues me, is why people build such elaborate belief structures in the first place.[/quote]
Pish posh.
[quote]Null wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SSC wrote:
Edited because it’s not worth it. I’m guessing everyone on this thread is a perfect physical specimen who has never taken advantage of anything in their lives and is a moral saint.[/quote]
You do not have to be a moral saint to understand that institutionalized subsidies of quite common flaws are a bad idea, in fact, being a bit of a prick helps.
Also, it may well be that people find her behavior especially repulsive because they recognize it in themselves and do not particularily like it, but be glad that they have not all succumbed to the siren song of the public teat or else women like her would simply starve for lack of resources.
It might take a while though. [/quote]
question:
Is it the morality of subsiding someone to in essence kill themselves…
–or–
is it the money.
If it is the money, the entire budget for human in the us is far less then for organizations and corporations. So start the cuts on the Corporations, after all they are people too…
Me,
I’m opposed to subsidizing any bad choice, while providing a safety net for those who can’t get by at the moment… Implementation would be hard, determining who truly needs help and who needs to do for themselves.
AND
I am horrifically opposed to subsidizing private companies. New stadium, build it your damn selves… Banks: they have been bailed out several times in our history. For a total greater then their total profits.[/quote]
I do not care whether she kills herself, with or without help.
I do care whether other people are treated as beasts of burden, there are such ugly names for such arrangements.
And yes, you could start with farm subsidies, corn subsidies, bank bailouts and so further and so on.
The mere fact that congress subsidizes corn and at least some congressmen want to tax softdrinks hight in HFCS and nobody even attempts to burn down congress makes me lose the little faith in humanity I have left.
There is one thing to be said about medieavel Europe, shit like this did not fly without the obligatory torches and pitchforks.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Null wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SSC wrote:
Edited because it’s not worth it. I’m guessing everyone on this thread is a perfect physical specimen who has never taken advantage of anything in their lives and is a moral saint.[/quote]
You do not have to be a moral saint to understand that institutionalized subsidies of quite common flaws are a bad idea, in fact, being a bit of a prick helps.
Also, it may well be that people find her behavior especially repulsive because they recognize it in themselves and do not particularily like it, but be glad that they have not all succumbed to the siren song of the public teat or else women like her would simply starve for lack of resources.
It might take a while though. [/quote]
question:
Is it the morality of subsiding someone to in essence kill themselves…
–or–
is it the money.
If it is the money, the entire budget for human in the us is far less then for organizations and corporations. So start the cuts on the Corporations, after all they are people too…
Me,
I’m opposed to subsidizing any bad choice, while providing a safety net for those who can’t get by at the moment… Implementation would be hard, determining who truly needs help and who needs to do for themselves.
AND
I am horrifically opposed to subsidizing private companies. New stadium, build it your damn selves… Banks: they have been bailed out several times in our history. For a total greater then their total profits.[/quote]
I do not care whether she kills herself, with or without help.
I do care whether other people are treated as beasts of burden, there are such ugly names for such arrangements.
And yes, you could start with farm subsidies, corn subsidies, bank bailouts and so further and so on.
The mere fact that congress subsidizes corn and at least some congressmen want to tax softdrinks hight in HFCS and nobody even attempts to burn down congress makes me lose the little faith in humanity I have left.
There is one thing to be said about medieavel Europe, shit like this did not fly without the obligatory torches and pitchforks.
[/quote]
But sometimes things are pretty simple. I can focus on ONE issue at a time. This issue, disability for obesity. Other folks and other threads like in PWI can discuss all that other stuff. My issue is pretty specific.
The other stuff is for another discussion.
I don’t support disability benefits for obese persons. That’s it.
So, the question in this thread is, “Do you support disability benefits for a person based solely on them being obese?”
That is it.
[quote]dianab wrote:
OG, back to the fat broad for a minute, can’t she do SOMETHING?
My boyfriend’s ex sits on her ass answering the phone from home all day in customer service or something, and although she’s not obese, she is generally useless but still manages to kinda have a job. Is the woman you know so fat she can’t answer the phone even?
I don’t get how people can live like that, take government money and sit and marinate all day.[/quote]
Hey there!
I didn’t really know her so well to ask her. Actually I really didn’t like her so much she was pretty much Eeryore and snarky. I think she is pretty happy with doing nothing.
But that is such a good question. Why can’t those folks work the phones?
Personally, I don’t believe that the obese deserve special treatment for their self-inflicted condition. In my opinion, a disability is something beyond one’s individual control, and I don’t buy the modern touchy-feely nonsense about obesity being a “disease”.
I am old enough to recall a time when a much smaller fraction of the populace suffered from this affliction, a time when the majority of us embraced an ethic of personal responsibility. If this question came up 25 years ago, there would have been no debate about it.