The 'Thin Privilege'

Off Topic
101

[quote]debraD wrote:
Aren’t most of you right wing repub or libertarian types? What happened to mind your own business? [/quote]

Yes, I do defend their right to be lazy fat asses. In fact, I gladly defended their right to be lazy fat asses with my own life, something they are incapable of doing themselves.

What I don’t think you understand is that libertarianism is a two-way-street.

The fatties demand not only the right to destroy themselves with food and lack of activity, but demand that we accept their stupid choices as wonderful, pay for the extra burden their fat carcasses take up, and favor them for employment over non-lazy people who will be able to do a better job becaue they are sick and tired all the time (and not lazy).

Libertarianism is about “sure do what you want, but you pay for the consequences of your own actions.”

Liberalism is about “do what you want and make the hard working pay for the consequences of your actions.”

Paying for these fat asses is bullshit.

Your father sounds like a great guy; I guarantee you he owned up to his eating issue and didn’t want anyone to have to pay for his bad choices. I fully respect that.

The lazy fucks on the website? They make me want a zombie apocalypse.

I’d keep them around just because I could always run faster than them.

102

I agree that it is someone’s right to be obese, people should have the right to do whatever they want. But when they publish an article saying it’s unfair that society hasn’t accommodated their every need, that’s ridiculous. And obesity is costing this country BILLIONS a year, that’s a fact. Our tax dollars are going towards money spent on the obesity epidemic. Shugart’s article sums it up pretty well.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_blog_hammer_velocity_shugart/blog_may_12_why_i_hate_fat_people

If someone wants to eat themselves to death, that’s their right and they can do whatever they want. I accept their life choice, and if I see a morbidly obese person I don’t judge them, I don’t know them and have no right to judge. One time I was in a grocery store in the frozen foods section, and someone who looked exactly like the guy in Shugart’s article, at least 400 pounds in a scooter, asked me if I could help her get the huge container of ice cream out of the freezer because she couldn’t stand up and reach it.

I helped her, with a big smile on my face, because if she wants to eat more ice cream, she has every right to. But if that person were to complain about how high the people in the store stock the ice cream because she couldn’t reach it, or that the store needs more scooters…well I guess I still would have helped but I wouldn’t have smiled about it!

103

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

Libertarianism is about “sure do what you want, but you pay for the consequences of your own actions.”

Liberalism is about “do what you want and make the hard working pay for the consequences of your actions.”

[/quote]

Great summary.

104

Are the same people concerned with the billions of dollars on additional health-care caused by obesity also concerned with the soda limit imposed in NYC?

If the state is picking up the burden of health-care costs, then should the state try to use laws or taxes to discourage unhealthy food choices? Alcohol and tobacco are taxed at much higher rates.

In some poor areas, there are many more cheap, bad food choices than healthy, more expensive food choices. Not everyone has the same access to healthy food. Furthermore, it’s easier to stretch a fixed budget with cheap, unhealthy food than it is with healthy, wholesome food.

This site tends to be populated by people who make exercise a part of their lives.
Perhaps, that’s our views of the general population?

105

DebraD:

I agree with your sentiment, that there is never an excuse to be rude to someone regardless of whether they are obese or in shape. I do my best to be considerate and civil to others.

It is nice to have an outlet to vent, however. When it is just us meatheads on this forum, sometimes I will write statements which would not be appropriate in any other venue.

106

[quote]mud lark wrote:

If the state is picking up the burden of health-care costs, then should the state try to use laws or taxes to discourage unhealthy food choices? Alcohol and tobacco are taxed at much higher rates.

[/quote]

Higher taxes and banning are two different things.

And no, we don’t need the State wiping our ass for us. If people shoose to drink 34oz sodas so be it. It is up to them to make a choice for themselves and pay for that choice, not me, and certainly not teh fucking government.

107

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mud lark wrote:

If the state is picking up the burden of health-care costs, then should the state try to use laws or taxes to discourage unhealthy food choices? Alcohol and tobacco are taxed at much higher rates.

[/quote]

Higher taxes and banning are two different things.

And no, we don’t need the State wiping our ass for us. If people shoose to drink 34oz sodas so be it. It is up to them to make a choice for themselves and pay for that choice, not me, and certainly not teh fucking government. [/quote]

i’d like to add that i am willing to bet my left nut that the extra income generated via increased taxation goes anywhere but helping cover medical costs

108

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mud lark wrote:

If the state is picking up the burden of health-care costs, then should the state try to use laws or taxes to discourage unhealthy food choices? Alcohol and tobacco are taxed at much higher rates.

[/quote]

Higher taxes and banning are two different things.

And no, we don’t need the State wiping our ass for us. If people shoose to drink 34oz sodas so be it. It is up to them to make a choice for themselves and pay for that choice, not me, and certainly not teh fucking government. [/quote]

Perhaps Bloomberg should’ve used a higher tax instead of a ban.

Somewhere between 40% to 50% of health-care costs are already paid for by the government in the form of medicare, medicaid, subsidies, etc. Like it or not, the poor health-related choices of others already affect ourselves in the form of higher taxes.

On the flip side, I feel that the tobacco tax is unfair because smokers are an overall less burden on the state because of the lower life expectancy.

Not arguing that there’s a problem. I’m just wondering if there’s a solution besides telling people to quit over-eating?

109

It can be because I have always been around people who are motivated and motivate others, especially since my dad used to be an athlete; because I have played sports most of my teen and adult life so far; and because most of my friends are athletes themselves, but I have no sympathy for those who complain about being obese. Everyone has choices, and you can choose how to live your life happily.

I do not care, but being obese and complaining about a “thin privilege” is like squatting all the time to get big legs and then complaining that the average clothing store does not have big enough jeans. You made a decision that goes against the average, so why should anyone want or need to cater to you? Plus, the excuse of cheaper food being more unhealthy is just that…an excuse. Maybe stop drinking soda and going to fast food restaurants? That is a pretty easy step to curb weight gain.

110

[quote]mud lark wrote:

Somewhere between 40% to 50% of health-care costs are already paid for by the government in the form of medicare, medicaid, subsidies, etc. Like it or not, the poor health-related choices of others already affect ourselves in the form of higher taxes.

Not arguing that there’s a problem. I’m just wondering if there’s a solution besides telling people to quit over-eating?
[/quote]

More government and more regulation is never the response to fixing poor consequences of a government program. The solution is to remove or limit the government program in the first place.

Here, the solution you seek is for the government to stop paying 40% to 50% of health care costs.

When people are no longer insulated from the effects of their poor choices, most all will chose to no longer make those poor choices.

111

I have been on both sides of this equation, where I was a meal away from 300 lbs (keep in mind I am a smidge under 6’2), and as thin as 160 lbs due to serious health problems.

During my fat phase, I knew deep down it was me and my problem. I ate to medicate myself from problems I was dealing with at the time. I saw how people treated me (which was bad), because it was a reflection of me. If I did not respect myself enough to sport an even decent amount of health and fitness, why should others ?

The moment I started dropping weight, I got the nice comments, “Max, you’re looking better, whatever you’re doing keep it up.”

I don’t care what anyone says, people treat you different when you show signs of success in any endeavor (more money, better physique, more confidence, etc).

These fat people are coddling each other in unison (strength in numbers), reiterating the same mantra of “this cannot be my fault because look at all these other fat people I congregate with.” “If I had the problem, then I would be the ONLY fat person around.”

All sorts of meaningless justifications to give you comfort in your lack of getting off your ass and exercising, and stop eating food with a shovel.

I knew I had to stop hanging out with certain people, because it only enabled this same feeling of helplessness. The moment I changed things around, I was noticed more and treated better.

The funny thing about being enormous is, you actually become invisible to society. Unless you consider only being known as a walking land-whale a sign of your existence.

112

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]mud lark wrote:

Somewhere between 40% to 50% of health-care costs are already paid for by the government in the form of medicare, medicaid, subsidies, etc. Like it or not, the poor health-related choices of others already affect ourselves in the form of higher taxes.

Not arguing that there’s a problem. I’m just wondering if there’s a solution besides telling people to quit over-eating?
[/quote]

More government and more regulation is never the response to fixing poor consequences of a government program. The solution is to remove or limit the government program in the first place.

Here, the solution you seek is for the government to stop paying 40% to 50% of health care costs.

When people are no longer insulated from the effects of their poor choices, most all will chose to no longer make those poor choices.[/quote]

I like your argument, and I’m not disagreeing.

However, people tend to be short-term focused. The drive to eat the donut maybe higher than the drive to prevent future medical bills at some unknown date.

Maybe taxing the donut and making broccoli cheaper (with or without subsidies) would help people to make healthier choices?
Or maybe we should just leave people alone and not worry about the choices of others.

Given the current legislative climate. I don’t see government’s subsidizing of health-care declining anytime soon.

113

[quote]mud lark wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]mud lark wrote:

Somewhere between 40% to 50% of health-care costs are already paid for by the government in the form of medicare, medicaid, subsidies, etc. Like it or not, the poor health-related choices of others already affect ourselves in the form of higher taxes.

Not arguing that there’s a problem. I’m just wondering if there’s a solution besides telling people to quit over-eating?
[/quote]

More government and more regulation is never the response to fixing poor consequences of a government program. The solution is to remove or limit the government program in the first place.

Here, the solution you seek is for the government to stop paying 40% to 50% of health care costs.

When people are no longer insulated from the effects of their poor choices, most all will chose to no longer make those poor choices.[/quote]

I like your argument, and I’m not disagreeing.

However, people tend to be short-term focused. The drive to eat the donut maybe higher than the drive to prevent future medical bills at some unknown date.

Maybe taxing the donut and making broccoli cheaper (with or without subsidies) would help people to make healthier choices?
Or maybe we should just leave people alone and not worry about the choices of others.

Given the current legislative climate. I don’t see government’s subsidizing of health-care declining anytime soon.
[/quote]

What you are describing is an addiction to government.

Withdrawal from any bad addiction sucks, but is worth it.

114

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mud lark wrote:

If the state is picking up the burden of health-care costs, then should the state try to use laws or taxes to discourage unhealthy food choices? Alcohol and tobacco are taxed at much higher rates.

[/quote]

Higher taxes and banning are two different things.

And no, we don’t need the State wiping our ass for us. If people shoose to drink 34oz sodas so be it. It is up to them to make a choice for themselves and pay for that choice, not me, and certainly not teh fucking government. [/quote]

i’d like to add that i am willing to bet my left nut that the extra income generated via increased taxation goes anywhere but helping cover medical costs[/quote]

I agree. Unless the tax is specifically earmarked (and even then I’m doubtful), the additional tax revenue will probably not reach it’s intended benefactors - such as directly into the medical system. Even then, there are no guarantees that the medical systems would not just use the money on some other project or function.

Also, once taxes are in place, they tend to stay in place. Government budgets are based on future revenue projections. My city was quick to raise property taxes when houses went up in value, but didn’t lower them back when the housing market tanked. If I recall, the excuse was that they needed the revenue to provide current services.

115
116

youtube why you no work?

either way link here
watch?&v=EzZzZ_qpZ4w

117
118

[quote]mud lark wrote:

Furthermore, it’s easier to stretch a fixed budget with cheap, unhealthy food than it is with healthy, wholesome food.

[/quote]

Maybe if the person is a fucking retard.

119

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]mud lark wrote:

Furthermore, it’s easier to stretch a fixed budget with cheap, unhealthy food than it is with healthy, wholesome food.

[/quote]

Maybe if the person is a fucking retard. [/quote]

fucking retard is a bit strong, but he’s right. the cost argument is a TOTAL COP OUT. It is cheaper to eat healthy because eating healthy decreases appetite. In the pictures on this site where I am in the best shape, I ate PEANUTS AND EGGS. nothing else. I was flat broke. You cannot find a cheaper diet (sure you could go all ramen, but you’ll get sick due to malnutrition if you keep it up for any real length of time)

120

[quote]mud lark wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mud lark wrote:

If the state is picking up the burden of health-care costs, then should the state try to use laws or taxes to discourage unhealthy food choices? Alcohol and tobacco are taxed at much higher rates.

[/quote]

Higher taxes and banning are two different things.

And no, we don’t need the State wiping our ass for us. If people shoose to drink 34oz sodas so be it. It is up to them to make a choice for themselves and pay for that choice, not me, and certainly not teh fucking government. [/quote]

i’d like to add that i am willing to bet my left nut that the extra income generated via increased taxation goes anywhere but helping cover medical costs[/quote]

I agree. Unless the tax is specifically earmarked (and even then I’m doubtful), the additional tax revenue will probably not reach it’s intended benefactors - such as directly into the medical system. Even then, there are no guarantees that the medical systems would not just use the money on some other project or function.

Also, once taxes are in place, they tend to stay in place. Government budgets are based on future revenue projections. My city was quick to raise property taxes when houses went up in value, but didn’t lower them back when the housing market tanked. If I recall, the excuse was that they needed the revenue to provide current services.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if tax revenue reaches its “intended benefactors.” By the time the revenue makes its way through the bureaucracy, very little is left! (~5%!!! <-average between the republican and democrat estimates) GOVERNMENT IS INHERENTLY WASTE.