It kinda goes along with the obesity drugs for family pets.

All you have to do is feed your pet less, and some folks don't even have the self-control to do that.




Anyway, initially I came out against this potential legislation, but I've seen an episode of Maury or something since then. There was this fat mother and fat grandmother who had a fat kid. Her sister was saying that they were abusing the kid by feeding him so much, but the mother and grandmother kept saying that the kid was hungry and they were just feeding him whenever he was hungry. Then it was revealed that the kid was grotesquely huge before he was even 1-year-old. That's just fucked up.

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 5:17 PM. Reason : sss]

3/29/2007 5:17:29 PM

Quote :

" hitler columbine followers of jim jones --- yea, low self-esteem never really hurt anyone. "

I had forgotten about how all those Nazi's had a really low self-image. Death camps etc... just cause they we're jealous and insecure. That whole "superior race" thing was just a ruse.

3/29/2007 10:37:59 PM

^I'm not gonna argue about Hitler cause I think there's evidence to support both a high and low self-esteem.

But it could easily be argued that the "Nazis", the people who largely stood by during that horrific chapter in human history, did suffer from low self-esteem. It's one of the reasons the whole "superior race" thing worked so well. I mean, I wish I could remember the name of that theory from psychology. Basically, it proposes that people who are put down and made to feel worthless/marginal are the most vulnerable to developing racist attitudes--it makes them feel better about themselves to claim superiority. And besides all that, a lack of self-esteem could have played a role in the dynamic that kept some people from speaking up and fighting back as their neighbors were murdered.

3/30/2007 7:04:15 AM

Quote :

"But it could easily be argued that the "Nazis", the people who largely stood by during that horrific chapter in human history, did suffer from low self-esteem."

Of course it could be argued. But it would be a stupid pointless argument.


p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 7:48 AM. Reason : a]

3/30/2007 7:47:41 AM

We definitely need more government intervention in the parenting process...

http://www.thepriceoftreason.net/

3/30/2007 7:47:47 AM

Not so cool with the govt butting in, but they need to damn sure charge the fatties more for health insurance. Being a fat ass is completely optional, and the costs for dealing with their gluttony is enormous.

I'd love for my insurance company to require checkups and assessments before writing the policy.

In short, GET OFF MY INSURANCE YOU LARD ASSES! YOUR LACK OF SELF-CONTROL IS COSTING ME $$$

3/30/2007 8:01:51 AM

Quote :

"i'm all for an Obesity Gestapo... but that's not the best part. i love it, the so called "less government" folks come out in full support of more government when its a cause they agree with."

3/30/2007 8:40:00 AM

Are you just saying in general, or are there specific people in this thread you'd like to identify?

3/30/2007 8:46:23 AM

Quote :

"State409c: Of course it could be argued. But it would be a stupid pointless argument."

Why would it be stupid and pointless? It's an argument about the value of self-esteem and whether or not self-esteem was a factor in the Holocaust...no more pointless than half the shit we opt to argue about.

Quote :

"State409c: p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum"

What does this have to do with anything I said?

3/30/2007 9:12:50 AM

The "Fat Police" could happen in a similar way to what has happened in Chicago. The city's leaders have banned foie gras. And don't give me that animal rights shit--if the treatment of the animals in question is actually the problem, then why not work to pass laws to improve the treatment of those animals?

NEWSFLASH: We slaughter and eat animals in this country--and it ain't pretty. I mean, your grilled chicken on wheat with light mayo doesn't appear by fucking magic, okay?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/national/main1550028.shtml

3/30/2007 1:55:35 PM

i am all for this.

parents who treat their kids like this are cruel and criminal.

i see it all the time as a teacher.

diversion:

i love this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Quote :

"Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

cool!

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2007 4:38:32 PM

BridgetSPK Clearly the NAZI leadership did not have a "self-esteem" problem, they had a we're racist bastards with no regard for human life problem. Its called evil, it exists.

The commoners in Germany at that time either bought into the superior race bunk or feared for their life, again motivated by actual physical danger not a lack of proper self-image or some crap like that. But psychobabble covers all so I'm sure you are correct that you heard it in some class or whatever, I'd just counter that doesn't make it worth listening to.


Sort of getting back to the topic of the thread,

You can expect a lot more than just the fat police with nationalized health care. Maybe not to begin with but eventually there will be pressure on each of us to live in the way that costs other people less money. In other words free health care will not be free, it will come with a bunch of restrictions to insure the health of the population. We already do this to some extent with intrusive safety laws, the logic supporting safety/health laws is much more well-supported once we really are paying for each other's healthcare entirely. This is one of the many reasons I want to pay for my own health care, I don't want the government or other people telling me what to eat or when to exercise etc..

3/31/2007 3:38:03 PM

You can have PE without hurting fat kids self esteem.

Just have them play Red Rover all the time.

3/31/2007 7:25:40 PM

^AHAHA

No, but seriously, on the topic of PE and self-esteem...I've already mentioned that the lack of PE is not due to any concerns about self-esteem but instead a lack of funding. Money is better spent elsewhere, some folks think.

If the lack of PE was about self-esteem, I'd find that counterintuitive. There are children who shine in athletic endeavors but may perform averagely in the classroom. Denying them that chance to experience success and build self-esteem (that they can take back to the classroom) just because some other kid sucks at dodgeball is ridiculous.

[Edited on March 31, 2007 at 8:21 PM. Reason : ]

3/31/2007 8:20:46 PM

The dream fat police, they live inside of my head.
(live inside of my head.)
The dream fat police, they come to me in my bed.
(come to me in my bed.)
The dream fat police, they're coming to arrest me, oh no.

3/31/2007 10:45:57 PM

Quote :

" Face it. A nation has a HIGHLY vested interest in having healthy citizens"

Does it? France has a pretty amazingly thin population, and last I saw we were kicking their asses in economic output.

In our economy the top-end of productivity comes from our heads, not our asses. Thankfully.

I do agree with previous commentary that raising fat children is basically child abuse, but until we start arresting parents for smoking around their children (often cruelly and incessantly), I don't want to hear about it anymore.

4/1/2007 2:42:51 PM

Quote :

"In our economy the top-end of productivity comes from our heads, not our asses."

Hard for us to use our heads from a hospital bed after triple bypass.

And can you imagine how much more ass our country would be kicking if it weren't weighed down with an unhealthy population?


When the China's of the world start coming up to us in terms of productivity and buying power, will they become as fat as we are?

4/1/2007 5:02:41 PM

Quote :

" Hard for us to use our heads from a hospital bed after triple bypass. And can you imagine how much more ass our country would be kicking if it weren't weighed down with an unhealthy population?"

Well, I think I'm talking about the top-end of productivity, which is where the growth happens. If we're talking about that, then we're usually talking about corporate executives, entrepreneurs, etc. etc.

Are they fat? Like morbidly obese? I doubt it. I haven't seen/met any who are.

The fact is, the people who are most affected by obesity are the bottom- to lower-middle of the income classes, people whose jobs are going to China anyways via outsourcing and off-shoring.

Could they kick more ass and move up if they weren't obese? Yea, probably. But it's not just a single-factor problem, it's a whole lifestyle issue. Some people are fat because they eat junk, some people are fat because they don't exercise. And even if those people weren't fat, maybe they're smoking or eating lots of cholesterol ... or they have stressful jobs (like CEO) and are going to have a heart attack anyway ...

It's hard to legislate "total health." How do you set the guidelines? Like, if I'm a parent and my kid weighs too much, how does the government intervene? They require me to submit a card with a calorie count every day to the Bureau of Childhood Health? There's a chesseburger embargo for my kids? An exercise requirement, and a fine if my kid doesn't lose weight?

Also, are the parents really solely to blame for obesity? I think it's the gradual increase in portion sizes, too. "Going out for a cheeseburger" is supposed to be a part of growing up. It's fun. There's nothing inherently evil about it. Except that now it's impossible to "eat out" in most middling establishments without getting a gut-busting quantity of food with incredibly unhealthy amounts of fat.

Is it really fair to legislate against the parents when they're really faced with few choices, depending on where they live?

You know, for short-term, "keeping it real" solutions from government, I much prefer things like the bans on trans-fats.

Ultimately parents who let their kids balloon out need to be held accountable. I think that's a matter of ethics and "how could you!?" But for the mainstream cases of "weighs too much now, will weigh way too much in the future," it's probably easier to deal with the problem at the source -- namely the restaurants. I feel like it's working on some level; McDonald's has certainly shaped up a lot in recent years (they aren't great, but a LOT better).

On a semi-tangent -- I'd like to point out another aspect of the raging obesity debate. In America, for men, it's generally not considered "manly" to be thin. The culture reinforces this idea. And, speaking of problems coming from the source -- look at Hardee's/Carl's Jr with their burgers and flagrant pandering to the "blue collar, 20-something Hungry Man."

Look at dieting culture in general. It's almost entirely lumped in with the "beauty" marketing aimed at women.

This mentality needs to change -- and it shouldn't be replaced by "manly men have lots of muscle mass." That isn't realistic for the majority of the population.

4/2/2007 2:17:47 AM

Quote :

"I do agree with previous commentary that raising fat children is basically child abuse, but until we start arresting parents for smoking around their children (often cruelly and incessantly), I don't want to hear about it anymore."

That's the one group of smokers that I think we should be cracking down on. But, back to the topic...

Quote :

"You know, for short-term, "keeping it real" solutions from government, I much prefer things like the bans on trans-fats. "

I personally think this is ridiculous. You do realize that when they remove trans fat, they replace it with saturated fat, right? It's not making anybody healthier, it's just a kneejerk public reaction to the latest "it" pseudo-health trend.

4/2/2007 9:46:19 AM

While this is a problem, it shouldn't be one that the government intervenes in this way for. Turns out you can't save people from themselves. If people want to just watch TV, play video games, and never do anything, you can't stop them from being lazy. If they want to eat like slobs and never exercise you can't save them from being fat slobs.

4/10/2007 9:18:25 AM

^ this is not about people doing it to themselves, but people raising kids like that.

4/10/2007 9:52:24 AM

Yes I know that. Kids will imitate their parents though. I'm sure these parents aren't forcing their kids to eat McDonalds, the parent's themselves eat unhealthy food and so the kids grow up expecting it. I doubt there are many health-crazy athletic types with obese kids.

4/10/2007 11:55:53 AM

I'm definitely not in favor of government intervention.

Social unacceptance is enough.

Additionally, Companies should be charging fat people more for health insurance, plane seats, and anywhere else where they cause an abnormal burden on a given service.

4/10/2007 12:25:22 PM

It seems to me that one issue people have with the national obesity epidemic is not so much that people get fat, but that once they do get fat and develop health problems they'll overstrain our healthcare system by needing bypass surgeries and the like. So let me play devil's advocate here. Unless you just have a genuine medical condition that causes you to be obese beyond your conscious control (eg thyroid dysfunction), why should American taxpayers foot the bill for your hospital stay? If you get obese due to poor life-style choices, then shouldn't you be the one responsible for paying for your treatments? Personal responsibility, as it were. Or is that too unethical a solution?

One idea that I wouldn't be totally opposed to is a so-called "fat tax." Put an additional tax on any foods that are above a certain percentage of fat content. You could even calculate the tax by the number of empty calories contained within so that you could include many "junk foods." Things such as low-fat meats, fruits, natural juices, etc, wouldn't be taxed, and maybe their prices could be partially subsidized, but things such as cookies, candy-bars, sodas, and McDonalds would incur a penalty in the form of this tax. Buying the occasional double whopper or snickers won't impoverish anyone, but this tax would discourage long-term consumption of such foods. Of course, this would require government convention, and the percentage of fat at which you start taxing could prove to be really arbitrary. And I know a lot of people aren't real crazy about the use of taxes to do social engineering, let alone more taxes in general.

[Edited on April 10, 2007 at 12:38 PM. Reason : blah]

4/10/2007 12:37:15 PM

Quote :

"Additionally, Companies should be charging fat people more for health insurance, plane seats, and anywhere else where they cause an abnormal burden on a given service."

Agreed. You buy a ticket on the premise that the seat is large enough to hold the average person. If your rolls are hanging over into my seat, you need to buy more than one ticket. You don't like it chose another form of transportation.

4/10/2007 12:48:12 PM

Quote :

"In extreme cases children have been placed in foster care because their parents have contributed to the health problems of their offspring by failing to respond to medical advice."

"he doesn't need medicine, he needs the power of jesus!!!"

yea i've heard of that shit before

4/10/2007 12:55:53 PM

^^They should make the seats larger too though.

Even at my healthy size, I don't fit comfortably into plane seats. I can only imagine what it's like for a large-framed man.

4/10/2007 1:05:14 PM

Sure they can make the seats larger, the price will just go up proportionately too. Then fatties can buy 2 tickets that cost 30% more because they made the seats 30% bigger and they still don't fit.

4/10/2007 2:42:05 PM

Quote :

"Even at my healthy size, I don't fit comfortably into plane seats"

i am curious... what's a "healthy" size??? is that like saying:

i am not fat, i am big-boned!!!

???

i don't know what your size/weight is, but if you a healthy size, what's an unhealty size? you+5 pounds = unhealthy, or you+20 pounds = unhealthy?

i am serious here.

and BTW, if you can't fit into a plane seat comfortably, you are not a healthy size, UNLESS you really are big-boned/have a big frame literally.

4/10/2007 2:45:58 PM

Damn I thought this was gonna be about me

4/13/2007 1:23:09 PM

Quote :

"They should make the seats larger too though."

they already can't even turn a profit...if they make the seats larger, they'll have fewer seats on the plane, and be even worse off financially.

4/13/2007 1:33:06 PM

Bigger planes?

4/14/2007 1:38:36 AM

^^I realize that. I mostly just mentioned that so folks would consider giving up pretending like those seats are by any means easy to fit in--even for healthy people.

Quote :

"0EPII1: i am curious... what's a "healthy" size??? is that like saying: i am not fat, i am big-boned!!! ??? i don't know what your size/weight is, but if you a healthy size, what's an unhealty size? you+5 pounds = unhealthy, or you+20 pounds = unhealthy? i am serious here. and BTW, if you can't fit into a plane seat comfortably, you are not a healthy size, UNLESS you really are big-boned/have a big frame literally."

By "healthy size," I meant when I wasn't obese, like I am now.

And I do have a big frame, and plane seats are/always have been uncomfortable.

Am I the only person who has experienced this?

[Edited on April 14, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ...]

4/14/2007 2:11:45 PM