It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

page: 11
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Sure it's fair.

Just as long as we also fine alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, obsessive gamblers, people with public OCD habbits, and obsessive impulse buyers.

How many people have suffered from those issues, tried to overcome them, sought help, fought and struggled, only to fall of the wagon? If we're fining people who have similar experiences with dieting, shouldn't we be fining these people as well? Are we really arguing that obesity places a burden on society greater than drunk driving, lung cancer, drug related crime, and financial insolvency?

Furthermore, there is direct evidence that obesity has a significant genetic component.



Three years ago, geneticists reported the startling discovery that nearly half of all people in the U.S. with European ancestry carry a variant of the fat mass and obesity associated (FTO) gene, which causes them to gain weight -- from three to seven pounds, on average -- but worse, puts them at risk for obesity.


www.fairwarning.org...



British and Swiss researchers who investigated the role of a gene present in fat tissue have made a discovery that eventually might improve the treatment of obesity-related health problems — including diabetes and heart disease, and perhaps obesity itself.


www.sciencedaily.com...



An obesity gene variant, present in 63 percent of the population, makes children eat an average of one hundred extra calories per meal, says a new study.

A team at the University of Dundee conducted an eating test with 100 schoolchildren aged between 4 and 10 and found that the children with the common variant of the so-called obesity gene FTO consumed an extra 100 calories. These children chose to eat food types that contained more sugar and fats as opposed to more healthy options.


www.macroevolution.net...

Couple that with depression, food addiction (which is a real condition,) and other comorbid factors, and you have a problem which in many cases can demonstrably be shown to not simply be a matter of people being mentally and/or physically "lazy" or "undisciplined."

Are we going to fine people for every other problem that meets those criteria? If we are, then as I said, sure it's fair.

But I doubt we're going to being going that, so...


edit on 5/18/2011 by AceWombat04 because: typo




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Sure it's fair.

Just as long as we also fine alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, obsessive gamblers, people with public OCD habbits, and obsessive impulse buyers.


If someone with any of these vices is on welfare then I agree with you. If they use their own money for such things then that is their business.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
SEIG HEIL ARIZONA! Winner of Comrade Che-dolf's Totalitarian state award! The hot sun has fried the Arizonan brain to a crispness of a "Del Taco". This is no suprise. Being fat and poor in Arizona will soon be a FELONY. EVERYTHING in Arizona is a felony! Ever been to Arizona? It's one big, giant cat box! AND it's too damn hot! Grand canyon? Big friggin deal, I roasted my ass off! Aren't THEY the ones that gave us Comrade Napolitano? You may ask yourself, what the hell are they thinkin? They don't think in Arizona, cause it's TOO DAMN HOT!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
If people cannot or will not take care of themselves then that is the rallying call for the benevolent government to step in and ensure they do so. For instance, if parents don't take care of their children, the government is *required* to step in and ensure the children are properly raised. Are we all not children of our government? If the government's citizens are not properly taking care of themselves, then the government is *required* to step in and take proper care of them. It really is one of the ultimate expressions of love, and sometimes that love might seem harsh, but it is love. Our government is looking out for us out of love. They are of love.

For instance, the government has ensured that smaller, healthier cattle companies canNOT test 100% of their beef for mad cow disease, stating that overall this would make it harder for the rest of the industry to operate since the rest of the industry tests less than 1/10th of 1% of beef for mad cow. Companies wanting to ensure 100% absence of mad cow disease were ordered by law to stop 100% testing. This is just one example of the love our government has for its citizens.

Further, to speak out about the practices of an industry (say, the cattle industry) in a way that would reduce sales (causing financial harm) can be harmful to the individual, --even if what that person says IS TRUE about the industry. ANY information shared by an individual that causes financial harm to a business leaves that person open for civil (and/or) criminal suites/charges. In some cases, the individual may be considered a financial terrorist, and that can lead to an entire new slew of unfortunate possibilities. This is yet another governmental expression of love. Of course, by now it might seem that the government "loves" industry and big corporations far more than the individual.

Should the government fine fat people for not dieting? Well, I don't know. Fat people consume more food, spend more money on it. They use more deoderant, more body lotion, etc. Fat people could be seen as a catalyst for big business profits, especially the health care industry, for fat people have more pronounced problems that require more expensive proceedures. In short, they are a cash "cow," --no pun intended.

Sure, people in great shape are probably screaming for fat fines and taxes. Non-smokers probably do the same for smokers. But, it won't stop there. Once everyone is a non-smoker and in great shape, they'll find another distinction, like drinking/drinkers. And then it might be gays/lesbians. And then it's the Jews all over again, and then minorities... and then... YOU. Once the avalanche starts, it becomes a hungry beast, and perhaps unstoppable. All of this... from a government who cares, who LOVES you...



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Open.Rant

This is simply outrageous in my opinion. I firmly believe that the government should not interfere when it comes to what you do to your body. Many of you have asked, where does it end? This is exactly right. Where does it end?
Maybe in the future they are going to force everyone to take the pill, or get the chip, etc...That's where laws like this will eventually lead.

Does the government learn nothing from history? While there aren't any occurrences that are exactly the same, the past holds many similar, characteristically speaking, laws and mandates that ushered in rebellion, death, revolution, etc.

Even though some of the things state, local, and federal governments do are completely and utterly outrageous, I am beginning to think these idiotic laws are good for us. The reason being that it will wake up the masses much more quickly, increasing our strength and allowing a greater probability for change.

I say the same thing about illegal drugs. Of course the government isn't telling you that you cannot use illicit substances, they just make the substances illegal, therefore you cannot, within the boundaries of the law, buy or possess these substances.

They haven't outlawed food yet, except for the Amish (lol), they have just genetically altered it. They are forcing people to conform to their program. If you live in this country, you cannot escape participating in society, which is ridiculous. They force you to live in society, telling you that you possess the greatest freedoms of any country in the world, as they continue to strip you of your rights. It's as if they are standing in front of you and cutting off your arms...And you say, "Hey government, why are you cutting off my arms?" And they reply, "We are not cutting off your arms." Of course if you resist, you get tased and they cut your arms off anyway, if they don't shoot you first...then sprinkle crack on you, as Dave Chappelle predicted, lol. Then when you finally prove, or they admit, that they are cutting off your arms, they say "Well, this is what is best for you. We know what is best, so just follow our laws and be happy without your arms."

Maybe not the best analogy, but I think you get the point.

I do not mean to be a fear-monger, but I firmly believe over the next 20 years or so there is going to be a major shift in the government of this country. I am not sure what exactly will happen, but it will be big. Either they will win, or we will. There will be either a country full of sheep, or a prosperous nation. There cannot be both imo.

This is of course only if the nation can hang on that long. Or whether the anti-tyrannical members of society can hang on that long.

End.Rant
Exit


edit on 5/18/11 by JiggyPotamus because: Spelling Error



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Sure it's fair.

Just as long as we also fine alcoholics, smokers,


We already DO fine these two groups in the form of taxes kept very high as a way to encourage them to use less or quit and to supposedly fund health care to make up for the extra burden they impose on the system because of their habits.
edit on 18-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
...and the point continues to be missed.


Originally posted by GhostLancer
And then it's the Jews all over again, and then minorities... and then... YOU.


I knew the Jews would come in somewhere. Thanks for not disappointing.


Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
This is simply outrageous in my opinion. I firmly believe that the government should not interfere when it comes to what you do to your body.


Bravo! Do you agree that they should also not "interfere" by giving out checks?

If the government PAYS YOU MONEY to go to a doctor, then you ignore what the doctor recommends, it's somehow a big deal that they ask for $50 back in the course of A YEAR?

Or should they just continue to send you a check, you ignore the doctor's advice, so you need yet more and more and more money for healthcare, which comes from other people who have it taken from them at penalty of imprisonment?

Wake the eff up, or at least have someone read the article linked in the opening post to you in your sleep.

Sheesh.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Response to OP: Neither/Nor. That is, neither should they be fined (that is uncalled for Government-intervention into their personal choices) NOR should I have to pay for them through tax/welfare. The welfare-crowd loves to cite the idea that their genes are "responsible" for their obesity but thats just nonsense. 9 times out of 10 they are responsible for their behaviour. And if their behaviour impedes their health, they should live with the consequences.

Of course the root problems are elsewhere...The Sugar Conspiracy.

Instead of investing into "welfare" for the obese, lets invest into health education. How about educating the dumb crowds that "No Fat" Foods that are supposed to help you lose weight contain so much sugar that you actually gain weight? And thats just one example. In the age of the Internet any obese person has the power to look up the facts in the Internet and learn how to get help.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Yeah really, I can make 60-70 beers for under 20 dollars... And that is not even buying bulk. The US is a lot less taxing on beer than here, 40-45 bucks for a 24 pack.... That will give you a rough idea how much the government taxes alcohol.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Sure it's fair.

Just as long as we also fine alcoholics, smokers,


We already DO fine these two groups in the form of taxes kept very high as a way to encourage them to use less or quit and to supposedly fund health care to make up for the extra burden they impose on the system because of their habits.
edit on 18-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)


Indeed. But do we levy an additional tax upon them if they receive welfare? And do we require them to follow a doctor's advice as a prerequisite for not receiving that tax?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Fine em! I wish they would create an incentive like that up here. Obesity creates a massive strain on the entire medical community, and 95% of being overweight is plain laziness. Argue that all you want, but how often do you think that obesity was seen 100, even 50 years ago? Its all complacency.

Hell, if you even want to argue that poor nutrition is the cause, all based on it being "cheaper commodity"...thats bull. I've worked on minimal dime, and still kept in good shape, because I had a clue how to budget, buying properly nutritious food with little money, and I know how to do crunches and pushups.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
Fine em! I wish they would create an incentive like that up here. Obesity creates a massive strain on the entire medical community, and 95% of being overweight is plain laziness. Argue that all you want, but how often do you think that obesity was seen 100, even 50 years ago? Its all complacency.

Hell, if you even want to argue that poor nutrition is the cause, all based on it being "cheaper commodity"...thats bull. I've worked on minimal dime, and still kept in good shape, because I had a clue how to budget, buying properly nutritious food with little money, and I know how to do crunches and pushups.


You are responsible for your own frequency and awareness, and for researching, not acting like a block head who just speaks distortions and harms others verbally. People are responsible for not seeking truth and buying lies when the whole system is nothing but corruption and the clues are all around you. And especially if your turning a blind eye to the corruptions causes any REAL harm or hardship or loss of freedom to occur to any other person. People are responsible for waking up and having no sense of control over others. You also must be aware, you have no authority, nor does any government, to legally abuse any group of people, or display any form of ignorance or prejuduce towards them. Laws that are crimes are crimes. Its up to us to see that. You're words are a criminal in supporting prejudice or a crime. But in short, mind your own business. Other people's lives aren't yours to control in any capacity whatsoever.
edit on 18-5-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
It's Totalitarianism, North Korea type of.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I think it's brilliant. This only applies to welfare recipients. So, if you want assistance, you gotta play ball. It's perfectly fair, in my opinion, and is actually in everybody's best interest. It doesn't punish anybody, it simply requires a person to make an effort.

If this were not restricted to welfare recipients, then of course it would be alarming.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I agree wholeheartedly with two points of view voiced by several members in this thread...

1. It is none of the government's business what someone weighs. That is a personal decision/situation which is only the responsibility of the individual and whomever that individual chooses to share their life with. If they choose to eat themselves into an early grave using money they have obtained themselves, so be it... BUT, this moves us to issue #2 which is

2. It is none of the tax payers' business to support ANYONE via state welfare. This is the computer age, it is very simple for any working individual to keep track of and for the agencies to keep track of the precise dollar amount that each worker has "invested" into the system. When hard times hit and someone applies for said welfare, they should recieve a letter stating clearly:
"Dear XYZ,
You have invested $9,100 into your personal hardtimes savings account (the new name for the merger of unemployment, SS, Medicare, etc taxes removed from each worker's paycheck). Please keep in mind that you need to find an alternate form of income before this $9,100 personal account runs dry because when the balance reaches $0, the teat is closed for business."
The idea that because someone worked hard, picked a secure career path, diversified their skillset, and managed to solidify their personal finances they should also watch their tax dollars go to support those who did not do that is as insulting and assinine as suggesting the ant should feed the grasshopper when winter arrives.

Keep the government out of
My Wallet
My Bank Account
My Paycheck
My Home
My Refrigerator and
MY LIFE



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
How can you even think of labeling this "fair" or "unfair" while it's a gross violation of basic human rights...?

Every person is sovereign over his/her own body.

Deny treatment? Sure

Pay a fine? That's just total bullcrap, if you dont treat them it will mostly cost the family an early funeral, and what about the people who are obese from an illness? or medication usage like sabril (epilepsy medicine that makes you fat)

Cmon people smoking is a choice (comparison i see alot here) being fat isnt always.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by IronArm
Fine em! I wish they would create an incentive like that up here. Obesity creates a massive strain on the entire medical community, and 95% of being overweight is plain laziness. Argue that all you want, but how often do you think that obesity was seen 100, even 50 years ago? Its all complacency.

Hell, if you even want to argue that poor nutrition is the cause, all based on it being "cheaper commodity"...thats bull. I've worked on minimal dime, and still kept in good shape, because I had a clue how to budget, buying properly nutritious food with little money, and I know how to do crunches and pushups.


You are responsible for your own frequency and awareness, and for researching, not being a block head who just speaks distortions and harms others verbally. You also must be aware, you have no authority, nor does any government, to legally abuse any group of people, or display any form of ignorance or prejuduce towards them. Laws that are crimes are crimes. Its up to us to see that. You're words are a criminal in supporting prejudice or a crime. But in short, mind your own business. Other people's lives aren't yours to control in any capacity whatsoever.



A wee bit offended by that it seems! Harms others verbally? What is so wrong with calling a spade a spade? Seriously? And you cannot in any way, shape nor form, deny that obesity creates a pluthera of health issues, mortal or not, that require funding from the gov't that you are under to keep you alive longer than 40 years old. Look at it as the same as car insurance. They are telling you that you will likely be in an accident, you are saying you will not. Taxing fatness is the same. They are telling you that you are likely to be harmed by your own self-enforced mindset and lethargy, and you are telling them that they are wrong, and you will live as long as Tony Little.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
At first I thought it is fair enough. If they want to be fat on their own dollar that is fine but if they are getting fat on MY dollar then no. They should follow a diet of their doctor. Doesn't matter what illness they have they can still follow a diet.

However after reconsidering it really doesn't matter. Fat or not they will still get the same amount of money. The fine will just be moved around to another social program. They just as well spend it on food keeping grocery stores in business.
edit on 18-5-2011 by jaydeePNW because: spelling



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by neformore
 


I think it's brilliant. This only applies to welfare recipients. So, if you want assistance, you gotta play ball. It's perfectly fair, in my opinion, and is actually in everybody's best interest. It doesn't punish anybody, it simply requires a person to make an effort.

If this were not restricted to welfare recipients, then of course it would be alarming.


lol. and then people wonder how come the world is so #ed up...




top topics



 
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join