The Bloomberg Strikes Back

What the hell is wrong with this dude?

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

You know, I’m running out of adjectives for this power-mad uber Nanny stater. I’m getting tired of pointing out that these bans and restrictions don’t work. There is a tendency of people to simply rebalance their caloric intake. Our bodies are designed, by millions of years of evolution, to avoid losing weight. If people drink less soda, they exercise less or eat more of other things.

Anyone who has tried to lose weight knows this. Losing weight is hard. It’s supposed to be hard because, outside of our current time and place, losing weight was a bad thing that indicated starvation. This instinct is not going to be deterred by shrinking soda size.

Bloomberg is a perfect illustration of what Maggie McNeill calls a “lawhead” — someone who thinks they can change reality just by passing a law. No matter how many times they fail to patch the Matrix to their desires (their calorie-labeling scheme was a complete failure) they keep passing these stupid laws. They keep pretending that, all of the sudden, people in New York will never drink too much soda and all lose weight. Why? Because Michael Bloomberg passed a law, that’s why! What? Don’t give me those looks. Bloomberg is about to outlaw smartass looks.

But, really, I’m wasting my breath on this. Bloomberg cares not for facts or invective. It’s not just because facts contradict his views. It’s because fighting obesity is not really the point. It is, at best, a side effect. Making people obedient to government; controlling more and more of their lives; having them dance to Mayor Nanny’s tune; that’s the point.

The point of power is power. The second Mayor Nanny started in on term limits, the people of New York should have tossed him into the Hudson. They are now bearing the burden of their lack of suspicion.

Comments are closed.

  1. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 5

  2. sahrab

    to what would one attribute the reason for the rise in obesity in the US

    Changes in the BMI scale to redefine one who was normal yesterday to obese today.

    I just know the big gulp didn’t exist when I was growing up

    I’m 40 and it existed when i was growign up

    kids I played with were nowhere near as fat as the ones I see in classrooms across the USA nowadays.

    Yeah yeah you walked to school everyday, in the snow, up hill both ways as well. Peoples perceptions of the past are always tainted, especially when comparing their past against someone elses today.

    can tell you that the kids I work with overseas where portion sizes are considerably smaller than here are nowhere near as overweight as kids here.

    Portion size has nothign to do with the “Epidemic”. Caloric intake is the driving force. The Caloric intake in the Western World matches the intake in the United States

    I resent that my health care premiums have to support your self clogged arteries and pay for your scooters and oxygen tanks almost as much as I resent your blubber oozing over into my seat.

    the oogy boogy has popped its head. I resent that you make grandiose bitchy statements about someone elses choices while ignoring your own bad habits (your human you have them).

    Obesity is the number one health issue in this country.

    You sure about that sparky? Your idiotic statements are a good reinforcement mechanism

    Thumb up 14

  3. swassociates

    If not the easy availability of insane portions and hyper caloric food – to what would one attribute the reason for the rise in obesity in the US?

    Right

    And drunk driving deaths in the US are because of cars.

    Thumb up 10

  4. Seattle Outcast

    It’s the next logical step in socialized medicine – control of all personal habits, choices. Remember, governments are your betters who are protecting you from yourself.

    Thumb up 9

  5. Seattle Outcast

    Banning of “evil” foods is such a knee-jerk response that you just know what a flawed concept is has to be on the very face of it. Here’s a quick list of reasons why it’s stupid and meaningless:

    1) People are overweight due to lifestyle choices, not the availability of HFCS in large quantities

    2) If you ban large drinks, people will simply order more of the smaller sizes.

    3) Most people, even the “poor” in this country have more than enough money to feed themselves too well

    4) You can’t force people to be physically active in order to be healthier. The average American is far more sedentary than they were 40 years ago thanks to the proliferation of computers, video games, etc. We spend our days at work on our butts, looking at computer screens. Just like we do after we have dinner – the only difference being what we are looking at on those screens.

    5) You’ll notice that the people that want to ban these foods aren’t denying themselves anything. It’s all about those “other people” – this is just like people who try to ban “McMansions” due to differences in life values.

    6) The BMI is a load of crap, and people have known it since day one. About the only time I was ever a “healthy weight” per the BMI you could count my ribs through my clothes at 20 feet.

    7) It’s not the job of government to protect people from themselves

    8) Healthier people are actually a bigger drain on medical resources: they live longer and require more end of life care, which is expensive, rather than just dying at a younger age from a sudden stroke or heart attack.

    Thumb up 8

  6. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 4

  7. Hal_10000 *

    Retluocc beat me to it. The so-called food desert is a myth. I think Ta-Nehisi Coates actually had a better take on why obesity is more common among the poor. 1) Habit. You get used to eating everything on the plate. TNC talks about how odd it was that when he started hanging out with richer people, they left uneaten food on the plate. Once he got into the habit, he lost about 25% of his weight. 2) Comfort. When you’re poor, junk food is one of the few affordable vices.

    I actually agree that your culture has gotten very oriented around a high-calorie, high-carb lifestyle. But the govt can not do much about this. Is is their food pyramid, after all, that emphasizes carbs.

    Thumb up 6

  8. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3

  9. Xetrov

    I’ve never understood why people put stock in the health benefits of the “Food Pyramid”. It was put out by the US Department of AGRICULTURE. Not the CDC, not the Department of Health.

    Thumb up 8

  10. Biggie G

    I forget where I read it, but there was an article that had a completely different take on this whole childhood obesity issue. It said that central AC was the biggest culprit in making kids fat. Before AC you could sit in the house and be hot or go outside with your friends and be hot. Now, with AC, you can sit in the house and be cool.

    Maybe Bloomberg should change his plan of attack. We can start with his mansion.

    Thumb up 6

  11. ilovecress

    Banning large drinks is a stupid idea. Prohibition is rarely the answer. And banning the Pint? Try that in the UK and he’d be burned at the stake.

    Having said that – (anecdotal I know) but I’m always caught off guard by the portion sizes whenever I’ve eaten in the States. When I was 18 I went on a Basketball tour for a month, and after a week the coach had to step in and take control because we’d all put on so much weight. The problem being that the food was not only plentiful, but also delicious.

    Thumb up 4

  12. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Seattle Outcast

    Having said that – (anecdotal I know) but I’m always caught off guard by the portion sizes whenever I’ve eaten in the States. When I was 18 I went on a Basketball tour for a month, and after a week the coach had to step in and take control because we’d all put on so much weight. The problem being that the food was not only plentiful, but also delicious.

    There are places here in the US that serve such large portions even Americans are dumbfounded by them. My wife and I have literally order a single meal off the menu at Claim Jumper for two people and had leftovers.

    Our friends from Spain have the same reaction to portion sizes as you do – there was one time she thought her meal was “for everyone” because she’d never been served so much food for one person in her life. She ate about 1/4 of it.

    Thumb up 4

  14. Seattle Outcast

    CM, in the US, if it’s sold by the “pint” and not actually a 16 oz glass, someone will sue, and likely be shut down/fined for false advertising. Beer is generally sold in 12, 16 or 20 oz glasses, or by the “pitcher” or “schooner” which can vary in size, but is frequently specified.

    Don’t dare get caught doing short fills – you’ll be out of business in a week. Beer is serious fucking business over here.

    Thumb up 4

  15. Mississippi Yankee

    I just know the big gulp didn’t exist when I was growing up

    If your statement is true then you are closer to my age (63) then prolly anyone else here. That being said, we did not have Nintendo, Playstation, X-Box ect. ect. If you had a TV it was small, B/W and sat in the living/recreation room.

    Our modes of transportation were foot power, bicycle power or maybe school bus. Most moms didn’t have a second car to haul your ass around for “play-dates”.

    Oh, and a tyrannical little man like Bloomberg wasn’t constantly telling us what we need or can’t have. BTW this isn’t his first foray into whats good or bad for me.

    Thumb up 4

  16. Seattle Outcast

    The Big Gulp was introduced in 1980 (thank you, Wikipedia). Previous to that 7-11 was know for Slurpee drinks, which are just as sugar-filled and addicting as a quart of pop.

    Even in the 60’s and 70’s, the primary mode of transportation for kids was foot or bike. AC was for rich people, there was nothing any good on TV, and if you weren’t dirty by the end of the day from playing outside, you were likely sick.

    We had lots of cars around the house, but only because my dad was a mechanic and bought cars that other people said “didn’t run” for cheap and repaired them. The “new car” (of which there were only two over a 20 year period) was always an automatic transmission for my mom, who learned to drive when she was 30. Dad drove an old truck.

    On the other hand, people falling over dead at 45 wasn’t unusual enough to be commented upon alarmingly amongst our parents generation, and they lived a lot “healthier and active” lifestyle that us fatties do now. Now if someone dies from anything other than cancer at 65 people talk about how “young” they were.

    Thumb up 3

  17. Section8

    My blood pressure rises every time I read Salinger’s and CM’s posts. Perhaps they should be banned from posting. For health concerns ya know.

    Yes, obesity is a problem. It’s not just food, most of the jobs out there have you sitting on your ass. Most entertainment these days is the same. There are multiple causes, but the concept of the government stepping in for your own good is bullshit. Hell, invading Iraq was for the good of the people there. Why would anyone want to live under a dictator? No one should be bitching about it then right? The for your own good argument can be used to justify anything. It’s bullshit.

    Don’t like high health insurance premiums? Then fat people should be charged more. Of course then that’s discrimination which the left can’t stand, so everyone pays up. Then we revert back to discriminating under the name of it’s for your own good. Bullshit pure and simple.

    Thumb up 4

  18. salinger

    If your statement is true then you are closer to my age (63)

    I graduated from high school the year it was introduced.

    There are multiple causes, but the concept of the government stepping in for your own good is bullshit

    .

    I certainly don’t advocate the government stepping in. My point was that the portions and caloric density of food served in the US is a major mitigating factor in the increase of obesity in this country. It is the number one health concern here and costs the country over a hundred billion dollars.

    Don’t like high health insurance premiums? Then fat people should be charged more.

    I’m all for it – same for smokers. Plus I think overweight people should have to buy two seats on a plane, why should their rolls seep into the seat that I paid for? Their lack of self control is an imposition and a cost to those around them.

    Bottom line – being fat for any reason other than a true medical condition like Cushings is stupid, particularly if one has access to healthy food.

    It’s simple – you don’t get much exercise – don’t eat so damn much. You like eating – get some exercise. I think parents who let their kids get obese are practicing child abuse.

    I certainly enjoy the tasty meal from time to time – especially when traveling – but I am very aware of what I put in my body is going to affect my overall health. I mean really, it’s a no brainer.

    How would folks here suggest this tide be turned?

    Thumb up 2

  19. CM

    Perhaps they should be banned from posting. For health concerns ya know.

    ;-)
    Best to just hide the posts by clicking on the down-vote. That way you can convince yourself you’re doing something different.

    CM, in the US, if it’s sold by the “pint” and not actually a 16 oz glass, someone will sue, and likely be shut down/fined for false advertising. Beer is generally sold in 12, 16 or 20 oz glasses, or by the “pitcher” or “schooner” which can vary in size, but is frequently specified.

    Don’t dare get caught doing short fills – you’ll be out of business in a week. Beer is serious fucking business over here.

    I’m sure the places get around it by not actually specifying/advertising them as ‘pints’. But as they look like pint glasses people still ask for ‘a pint’ and get them anyway. At least with a standard bottle there is no debate.

    In 24 hours I’m starting a stag weekend (brother in law is getting hitched) – I’m sure I can undertake some serious research on this. Not sure I’ll remember what the findings were though.

    Thumb up 1

  20. CM

    Don’t like high health insurance premiums? Then fat people should be charged more. Of course then that’s discrimination which the left can’t stand, so everyone pays up. Then we revert back to discriminating under the name of it’s for your own good. Bullshit pure and simple.

    I say unless they have an underlying medical condition (from birth or developed irrespective of lifestyle) then charge them more. I have no problem with that.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    It’s for your own good CM.

    Actually I’m sure it’s for ‘the good’ of the profits of the establishment. ;-)
    No matter, I’m sure tomorrow ‘portion size’ will go out the window. I must just remember to wear shoes that I don’t mind being covering in vomit…..
    In London I used to happily put away 9 (actual sized) pints on a Friday night and still make it home in one piece. These days I’d be struggling to deal with more than 5, and that would be with the bogus ‘pint’ glasses too. I’m so not piss-fit. I fear the worst.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    Cm – that’s if you can find a pint in somewhere like Auckland. 8 dollars for a bottle? feck off.

    Yeah true that. I work only a few doors from the King’s Arms though….very old school. They do actual pints for $7. Very dangerous.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Mississippi Yankee

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    — C. S. Lewis

    OR

    Clip from Demolition man. Officer Lelina Huxley explains to John Spartan all that all the things he used to enjoy have no been ‘deemed’ bad for you, and are hence illegal.

    Thumb up 2

  24. Xetrov

    Bottom line – being fat for any reason other than a true medical condition like Cushings is stupid, particularly if one has access to healthy food.

    It might be stupid, but it’s also every American’s god-given right (so long as they can afford the unhealthy lifestyle). I would imagine a large percentage of people on food-stamps are classified as overweight if not morbidly obese. Start there considering they are getting that way on the tax-payer’s dime.

    How would folks here suggest this tide be turned?

    Not through Government intervention.

    Thumb up 6

  25. Section8

    How would folks here suggest this tide be turned?

    Good question. Well I think one of the major problems is not enough exercise. I think kids need to be encouraged to play. I think parents need to be made aware that if their kid goes outside they are not going to get kidnapped by some stranger and murdered. It just doesn’t happen except under extremely rare circumstances, rare enough to where any other rare form of harm is equally possible. Kids stay indoors now, play video games and watch TV, so they are already gaining weight before middle age sets in. Companies should be encouraged, but not forced, to have some sort of exercise activity. Not just a gym, but something more organized.

    Thumb up 2

  26. Seattle Outcast

    The problem isn’t that people are overweight, the problem is people think that society needs to do something about it.

    Quite simply, somebody’s weight, or health in general, isn’t anyone’s business but their own. Nor is what they eat, who they fuck, what TV they watch, political opinions they have, or websites they visit. These aren’t issues that government or “society” has any business sticking it’s nose into.

    People have all the information they will ever need to live a “healthier” life, lose weight, exercise more, etc. That they do otherwise is their personal fucking choice, made by a free person. Anyone that thinks they need to be coaxed, persuaded, forced, etc, to do otherwise can just go suck the barrel of a .45 auto….

    Thumb up 7

  27. salinger

    Quite simply, somebody’s weight, or health in general, isn’t anyone’s business but their own.

    What if it indirectly or directly affects others?
    Higher insurance premiums and hospital space – encroaching into my space on an airplane (obvious that this is a real pet peeve of mine) – taking that handicap parking space that otherwise would have gone to someone who didn’t put themselves in the position of being an imposition on society. See, the thing that irks me about overweight people – most of them have done this to themselves and then the rest of us are expected to pick up the tab for their stupidity. Would you be as libertarian with a drug addict, or someone into radical body modification? Come to think of it – obesity is a form of radical body modification.

    Nor is … who they fuck,

    NAMBLA supporter then?

    Anyway – is there any other commodity that is limited in the amount that one may purchase at a time? I’m having a tough time coming up with something.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Seattle Outcast

    What if it indirectly or directly affects others?

    Nothing anybody does happens in a vacuum. Your argument is meaningless

    Higher insurance premiums and hospital space

    Insurance is risk spread out over a group. If you would like cheaper insurance premiums, belong to a different group. You know, like non-smokers do.

    Hospitals exist to make money, and there is no shortage of them, or available space.

    That’s two down.

    encroaching into my space on an airplane (obvious that this is a real pet peeve of mine)

    Complain to the airline, travel first class, or find an airline that doesn’t provide shitty seats that are too small for anybody not a 85lb waif of a ballerina.

    Here’s a thought, you don’t have a right to seat unless you buy one, and the airlines are pretty much just selling what they can get away with. When it comes right down to it, they aren’t even making that much money off you travelers in coach. If they could they’d make you fucking stand the entire trip and charge you tens times as much for the ticket.

    Three down.

    Taking that handicap parking space that otherwise would have gone to someone who didn’t put themselves in the position of being an imposition on society.

    So, people with handicaps are only allowed a primo spot if the circumstances are beyond their control? How about wounded vets? They volunteered to go into harm’s way so you could be a douchebag whiner.

    So, not only are handicapped parking spots in great abundance and underused (even by fat people), they are also mandated by federal law, which means NO FUCKING DISCRIMINATION YOU ASSHOLE.

    Also, I don’t see you walking around with a medical degree determining who is obese for what reason.

    Four down

    See, the thing that irks me about overweight people – most of them have done this to themselves and then the rest of us are expected to pick up the tab for their stupidity.

    Same thing with people with lots of sports injuries. You know, those skinny people running around with arthritis, replacement joints, and connective tissue degeneration. They did all of that to themselves, and yet the rest of us are expected to pay for their lifestyle choices of high-risk sports. What’s more, they live longer and cost more to care for. They are driving up the costs for the rest of us by not dying at a decent age.

    Five down

    Would you be as libertarian with a drug addict, or someone into radical body modification?

    Yes. I’ve stated as much many times.

    Six down

    Come to think of it – obesity is a form of radical body modification.

    Only if they do it on purpose.

    NAMBLA supporter then?

    Children are incapable of giving consent to sex, which is pretty much the definition of rape. I support NAMBLA only so far as it allows us to identify child rapists for summary execution.

    Seven down

    Anyway – is there any other commodity that is limited in the amount that one may purchase at a time? I’m having a tough time coming up with something.

    In some places that would be guns.

    Thumb up 10

  29. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Mississippi Yankee

    I weigh 210 pounds but have a 32 inch waist and I fit fine into the seats.

    That impressive!
    I weigh 204, have a 36″ waist and am a RCH below 6 feet. So by my calculations you’re probably bald because your head must constantly rub up against the overhead compartment right?

    Thumb up 0

  31. salinger

    your head must constantly rub up against the overhead compartment right?

    Uh no, I’m a little over 6’1″. I’m pretty fit – run (and place) in triathlons in the Clydesdale division. Also lift so that’s where my weigh comes from 16.5 arms. According to standard BMI charts I am overweight – according to my last physical where I requested a proper assessment I rank closer to a 19.5 rating. Even though my weight is lean I still have to keep up my cardio because weight is weight as far as the heart is concerned.

    Thumb up 0

  32. Seattle Outcast

    Exactly, which means my argument is not meaningless.

    By your logic, government should control every aspect of everyone’s lives.

    I see we aren’t going to see eye-to-eye on a lot of this, so I’m not going to argue it to death. I will grant you that I see your points, but I think your focus on them is too narrow. I’ve been the guy in the middle seat stuck between two sumo-sized blobs, and my insurance rates are too high.

    However, at least for the insurance rates, I know the correct entity to blame is the government with their endless regulations that stifle how they are supposed to work. You want your rates to come down, harass your congressman for insurance regulation reform.

    And as for airlines – I deal with them on a professional level. Your comfort is of so little fucking concern to them that you might as well have a barcode on your forehead so they can toss you into the baggage compartment. Their actual profits come carrying mail and freight, the passengers barely even cover the costs of dealing with them. The reason the sumo wrestler is oozing into your seat is because some airline bean counter figured out the seat size and configuration for coach, which he will never actually use.

    There was an interesting study done in the last decade about people who bike to work vs driving to work. The bicyclers cost the health system more – a lot more. By living an extra decade they enter the really expensive end-of-life care phase and consumed several times the resources of their less fit counterparts, who died earlier with fewer accumulated health costs.

    Finally, the causes of being overweight are far, far too varied to be able to slap the “it’s your own fucking fault” label onto it. To start with, it assumes that all physical and psychological conditions each person has have been successfully dealt with, in addition to ensuring that each person also has adequate time to cook proper meals and exercise.

    Additionally, all those various sports injuries I mentioned previously work against you later on in life. Being really fit can backfire on you a couple decades down the road – from personal experience I can tell you that after my next surgery I look forward to actually being able to walk, or even stand up, for ten minutes again without being in constant pain. You’re not going to know any of that without talking to me, and your first thought is “fatso needs to put down the fork, so to hell with him.” I’m not overweight due to overeating, It’s because I’ve spent years slowly losing my ability to be physically active when I used to be a jock – you should see the list of stuff I can’t do any longer.

    Thumb up 3

  33. salinger

    I’m not going to argue it to death

    Good idea – I’ll finish with this:

    There was an interesting study done in the last decade about people who bike to work vs driving to work. The bicyclers cost the health system more – a lot more. By living an extra decade they enter the really expensive end-of-life care phase and consumed several times the resources of their less fit counterparts, who died earlier with fewer accumulated health costs.

    I’d like to see this study – most “studies” do not go deep enough. You should understand this considering your profession – root cause and all. What about the taxes and contributions these healthier folks make working later into life and being productive beyond the time of the barely mobile obese?

    Anyway – my point is the same as yours. We do not live in a vacuum – actions effect those around us. If one is going to say we need to let this group slide, pick up the tab for them, take extenuating circumstances into account – make accommodations because of life choices they made but not THIS group – well I find that a bit hypocritical.

    I pay my insurance premiums – understanding that I am subsidizing people who care less for their health than I do mine and have to be satisfied with the fact that I am able to lead a fuller life than them.

    Plus – nothing gets a bigger rise out of the folks around here than threatening to take their junk food away.

    It’s because I’ve spent years slowly losing my ability to be physically active

    This is a classic mistake of former athletes – look at the pro football players who balloon into mountains after their careers (and I’m not talking about the linemen – those guys are already beyond hope.. They think they can still consume the same calories – it doesn’t work that way. Less activity – less food – very simple equation.

    Okay – that’s it for me on this one – I’m going for a ride ;)

    Thumb up 0

  34. Seattle Outcast

    Can’t find the article, but it is quite in-depth and the numbers aren’t bullshit. I used to link to it when I was feeling particularly obnoxious toward holier-than-thou bike nazi types.

    As for portion sizes, I had this little argument with my sister-in-law just a couple weeks back. When on vacation with the family she, for some reason I can’t fathom, starts telling all the wait staff that I eat monstrous quantities of food, and that at the buffet they’ll need to “cook up another cow” just for me. Finally asked just exactly what meal was it that I ate any more than anyone else. After a blank look for 30 seconds she came back with “all of them”, which obviously wasn’t true as my food bill was actually the lowest for our group. And she ate more than I did at the buffet. Twenty years ago, when I spent most of my free time at the gym I did eat for two, and I was ripped as all hell.

    I changed my food intake to account for my reduced metabolism and lower activity levels years ago, but that only goes so far. Aside from needing surgery, my only health issue is the family tendency toward hypertension, which is easily controlled with cheap meds.

    Finally, you’re conflating the insurance issue with personal freedoms – you need to divorce the two issues from each other as health insurance isn’t a right, it’s a commodity.

    Thumb up 3

  35. JimK

    1. Fuck Bloomberg. And fuck anyone who supports this bullshit power grab. Because one day they WILL take something you love, and fuck you for not fighting back when you had the chance.

    2. salinger says:

    the barely mobile obese?

    Which are such a small number of people as to be statistically insignificant for the purposes of major fiscal policy discussion, and even if they were a factor, this is about removing rights from grown-ass adults under the guise of “helping.” Which is utter horseshit. Because it won’t stop at the number of ounces in the soda. This shit NEVER stops once it starts.

    Also? You’re a total fucking asshole about fat people. I’d love to dig through your life and find the dumb fucking shit you do that costs the rest of us money. I wonder how much abuse you’d take.

    3. Seattle Outcast says:

    The reason the sumo wrestler is oozing into your seat is because some airline bean counter figured out the seat size and configuration for coach, which he will never actually use.

    Actually…I just read about this the other day.

    Current seat sizes were created basically in the 60’s by measuring the then-average male’s hips. They assumed the measurement would carry over to women as women were thought to be smaller. They usually aren’t in practicality. Also, measuring hips was stupid. That’s not the widest part of the average person, obesity aside. It’s the shoulders.

    Anyway, seat manufacturers have all kinds of things they could do, but the airlines don’t want them. They want 17 inch seats, jammed as close as 30-31 inches together front to back.

    Finally, you’re conflating the insurance issue with personal freedoms – you need to divorce the two issues from each other as health insurance isn’t a right, it’s a commodity.

    BINGO.

    Thumb up 8

  36. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  37. Seattle Outcast

    This guy cites refined foods as a major culprit. Quick easy tasty calories which require no work from the body to absorb. A quick and easy rule of thumb is to avoid white food. White sugar – white bread – white rice etc. etc.

    You’re really, REALLY, starting to sound like one of those food-Nazi assholes that think that because they buy “organic” food and ride a bike everywhere they are suddenly superior people that are entitled to talk shit on everyone else.

    I’ve also read studies that show that the “Obesity Epidemic” has flat-lined. Generally speaking, it took a generation to get to the point where people are about as fat as they are going to get. We already spend all of our time our ass in front of a computer or TV, and you can’t cram any more calories into a person without using a shovel.

    Finally, the “remove white food from your diet” bit is at least 25 years old. While removing refined grains and sugar from your diet is likely a good thing, food trends are generally bullshit. Shall we start listing all the bogus dietary information we’ve been offered since the 70’s?

    Salt is bad for you
    Eggs are bad for you
    Butter/meat is bad/good/good/bad/whatever for you
    Sugar is bad/good for you
    HFCS is good/bad/good/bad for you
    Saturated/Unsaturated fats are good/bad/etc for you
    Raw food is good/bad for you
    Cooked food is bad for you
    Sushi is good/bad for you
    The BMI
    The “Food Pyramid”
    Carbs are good/bad for you
    Oganic food is “better” for you
    Booze is bad/good for you

    Get the picture? Chose a food topic and flip a coin on good or bad. Remember to change your opinion in 10 – 20 years.

    Thumb up 4

  38. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  39. Dave D

    Salinger:

    I have bad genes. Diabetes runs in my family even for the thin relatives. You apparently don’t ahve bad genes. Nothing that you have done yet yo brag . Fuck you for lauding that over others. There’s a hot place in hell for people who do that, imo.

    Thumb up 2

  40. salinger

    Hey Dave –

    Sorry to hear about your health issues. I hope you and yours receive the treatment you need to live a full life.

    The synopsis of my first comment on this post is: I don’t know if laws on drink sizes is a good idea – but obesity is a big problem in the US.

    Everything else has been a direct response to folks who, I have to assume, don’t agree with that statement.

    Thumb up 0

  41. Seattle Outcast

    I’m 50 years old – could run a marathon tomorrow, have blood pressure of 115 over 70, a resting pulse rate around 40, just got back from a 60 mile bike ride with a couple 20 somethings and I bench press 1.5 times my weight for reps

    I have 4 black belts, scuba dive, once embarrassed a state golden gloves champ so badly he stayed and ask for lessons (only half way to black belt at the time), can shoot like a fucking sniper, and have a 9″ dick.

    Also, it sounds like you need a car….

    Thumb up 4

  42. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  43. Seattle Outcast

    It was the back problems that forced me to quit martial arts a year and a half ago. Which, after nearly 30 years, I was ready to take a break from anyway.

    These days I do all my beating up of others with an Xbox controller.

    Thumb up 2

  44. Dave D

    SO: Why are you susch an unhealthy slug? lol/jk

    Salinger has obviously never faced adversity due to uncontrollable health issues. People like him think they are better than everyone else simnply because they have not been stricken by something they cannot control. He’s also a flaming idiot about his own luck………

    Thumb up 5

  45. Seattle Outcast

    Sooner or later, all jocks see the end results of their hard work; on the operating table getting replacement parts and getting told to slow down.

    It’s a real adjuster of ego to realize that the “flabby” person in the next cubicle has far cheaper medical expenses and a lot less pain to deal with.

    Thumb up 1

  46. Dave D

    Agreed. Why should I have to pay for the 5th ACL reconstruction on a healthy, althletic baskeball player, for example? My point was that LOTS of us flabby, genetically imperfect people are that way for a reason other than “we eat poorly and are lazy”, unlike what the resident insenstive asshole has been spouting in this thread.

    Thumb up 3

  47. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  48. Kimpost

    I say unless they have an underlying medical condition (from birth or developed irrespective of lifestyle) then charge them more. I have no problem with that.

    I prefer sin taxes over exclusion. Even idiots deserve access to healthcare, IMO.

    Thumb up 0

  49. Mississippi Yankee

    I prefer sin taxes over exclusion. Even idiots deserve access to healthcare, IMO.

    Aren’t sin taxes when you raise the tax of an already taxed item (tobacco, booze, ect.) thereby increasing it’s price, causing less people (think po’ peebles) to buy said items? And at the end of the day all gubmint has is that smug feeling that they did something, right?

    Sorta like smelling your own farts, correct?

    /see South Park/

    Thumb up 2

  50. Seattle Outcast

    There is always an excuse not to eat right and not to exercise. it’s been my experience that most of these justifications are bullshit. I am always astounded how roiled up this subject gets the people here – must hit home with a lot of you.

    OK Salinger, you just crossed over into “health asshole” territory big time, complete with smarmy ego and a need to be taken down a few pegs. You’ve just taken your priorities and decided that anyone that didn’t hold the same ones are truly lesser people. You want to know why it gets them roiled up? It’s simple; it’s your douchebag attitude and rush to judgement. People don’t like being insulted by some moron that can’t figure out it’s time to get off their high horse, shut the fuck up, and let people live their own lives how they want without you sneering at them for not running marathons.

    And then you have the fucking nerve to dictate to them what they should be allowed to eat.

    Thumb up 12

  51. Kimpost

    Aren’t sin taxes when you raise the tax of an already taxed item (tobacco, booze, ect.) thereby increasing it’s price, causing less people (think po’ peebles) to buy said items? And at the end of the day all gubmint has is that smug feeling that they did something, right?

    Yes, and if people still choose to, let’s say smoke, then the extra tax revenue just might help paying for some of the additional healthcare costs. As a devout communist ;), I want society to take care of people regardless of how reckless they choose to live their miserable lives.

    Thumb up 0

  52. Mississippi Yankee

    Y

    es, and if people still choose to, let’s say smoke, then the extra tax revenue just might help paying for some of the additional healthcare costs.

    Can you tell what you had for breakfast? go on take another sniff.

    What “extra tax revenue” would that be? The “if people still choose to, let’s say smoke,” part of your argument suggests that a signiicant number did in fact quite there by paying less tax for your devout communist agenda.

    C’mon, this is third grade math ferchrissakes.

    Thumb up 4

  53. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  54. Mississippi Yankee

    How many times has someone posted, essentially “liberals are morons” pretty much just for holding a different point of view? The answer is: shitloads.

    Not so much anymore, we’ve evolved ;)

    Yanno, apposable , or was that opposable thumbs

    Ladies choice.

    Thumb up 1

  55. Kimpost

    C’mon, this is third grade math ferchrissakes.

    A pack of fags ;) cost what? $7? Of which $5 are taxes. Let’s say that someone smokes two packs a day for 40 years before he/she develops lung cancer.

    2 packs x $5 x 365, 25 days per year x 40 years = $146.100 in tax revenue. Had it been fourh grade math I would have added interest too, but since it’s just third grade I’ll pass.

    That’s still something.

    Thumb up 0

  56. balthazar

    Sin taxes work SO WELL….

    Whats the most smuggled item in NYS since NYS passed its huge cigarette tax increase……YEP cigs!

    Not only that, the Tax revenue HAS GONE DOWN. They also are spending more money trying to stop the smugglers, WOW THAT TAX WAS A GOOD IDEA!

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804682785163691.html

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20122250.html

    Almost 1/2 of all cigarettes sold in NYS are smuggled.

    http://www.mackinac.org/14210

    Facts suck, look them up some time Kim. Your fantasy Sin Tax Land doesnt exist.

    Thumb up 3

  57. sahrab
    Mississippi Yankee – causing less people (think po’ peebles) to buy said items?

    Kimpost – Yes

    Was that you just admitting Taxes are a restrictive mechanism used as a means, by the Government, to force an entitiy (Citizenry) to stop doing something ?

    And you think raising taxes on “the Rich” is good why?

    Thumb up 3

  58. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  59. JimK

    Misrepresentation is definitely your style Sally.

    BINGO. It’s called a strawman for a reason. He knows he’s a total fucking asshole about this particular topic, so he builds your argument into something else and rails against that.

    Ain’t the first time he’s done it, won’t be the last. Some people like to play at being alphas. Makes ‘em feel better, I guess.

    Thumb up 7

  60. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  61. sahrab

    I do not think limiting drink sizes is the answer but obesity is a big and expensive problem in the US. That’s it in a nutshell

    And (not suprising) ignored counter evidence

    You made all sorts of subjective claims about obesity, and ignored when called out on it.

    You ignored the “Obesiy Crisis” is manufcatured and amazingly came about right after the BMI index (what the Government uses and how you base your claim) was re-baselined lower (occurred in 1998). Arnold Swarzenegger (in his competition days), Cal Ripkin and most of the NFL are now considered obese.

    You claimed obesity was the Number One health crisis. A quick google search refutes your bullshit, you even went to the link and STILL claimed it was.

    You claimed being obese cost more. Once again google is your friend

    A Dutch 20 yr old study on the lifetime medical costs of Smoking, Healthy and Fat, in Euros:

    Healthy: 281,000

    Obese: 250,000

    Smokers: 220,000

    According to your argument, the “Healthy” person should be charged/taxed higher for their burden on the system

    Thumb up 1

  62. JimK

    The mistake you are ALL making with Sally is letting him frame this debate.

    FUCK the “cost to the system.” That is a bullshit metric. The reason it matters is the end game for control freak assholes is to control the system, so they prime you with “costs to the system” so you will agree to measures to control those costs. It’s all part of the big control game that people who like to pretend they’re alphas play.

    Don’t buy into it. The cost of a healthy vs. obese person is not the issue at ALL.

    The issue is, by what right does a government decide what you can and cannot eat.

    In fact it’s even more simple than that. The first thing you should ask yourself about ANY government spending, program or guideline is, “Do they have an actual right to do this, and if not, will I allow it anyway?”

    Letting him frame this debate in terms of costs to the system per capita is part of the problem. Because you’ve already surrendered part of your argument when you do that. You’ve assented that the system is more important than an individual, and that controlling costs to society is more vital than protecting rights and freedoms.

    Don’t play the game. Re-frame the argument. Ayn Rand got some things dead right, and one of those is to ask the question: By what right?

    Oh, also, the whole “I don’t want the government involved” defense? I don’t believe that for one nano-second. If a Democrat put forth a whole-country food plan that Sally agreed with, he’d be demanding it become law ASAP, because those fatties need to be told what to do. They disgust him, his rhetoric demonstrates that.

    Sally, you sound very much like a homophobe railing against those damn gays. You;ll deny it of course, but everyone else can see the vitriol in your posts. You hate fatties. It’s cool. Be a goddamned man and admit it. Stop backpedaling from your hatred. Be the alpha male you so obviously want to be. Fake it ’til you make it, man. Fake it ’til you make it.

    Thumb up 7

  63. salinger

    A Dutch 20 yr old study on the lifetime medical costs of Smoking, Healthy and Fat, in Euros:

    Okay – I have to break my promise of not posting in this thread due to the utter dishonesty of this retort. I see you conveniently left out the average yearly costs – since there it is is obvious the obese and smokers cost more. Of course lifetime health cost is going to be greater for someone who lives a decade or two longer. Where is the contribution to society – taxes, productivity at work etc. for those living longer charted? Are you volunteering to shake off this mortal coil five, ten twenty years earlier as a philanthropic act? Thanks!

    There is no way you can ever prove being obese is not a health risk. That’s just stupid. Run the idea past your physician at your next physical.

    Cal Ripkin and Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be considered obese – there are qualifiers to the BMI. I told you I would be considered obese by the BMI chart – but when done with calipers and conductivity at my doctors office I went from something like a 25 rating to a 19.5.

    I’d ask you to list these “subjective” ideas I have about obesity and knock them off one by one – but I am really tired of this. Facts don’t matter to you guys. You may consider having won this argument with your amazing debating skills if it will end it.

    Thumb up 0

  64. sahrab

    Of course lifetime health cost is going to be greater for someone who lives a decade or two longer. Where is the contribution to society – taxes, productivity at work etc. for those living longer charted? Are you volunteering to shake off this mortal coil five, ten twenty years earlier as a philanthropic act? Thanks!

    And he moves the goal posts again.

    By what right does the government have to impose the restrictions?

    Cal Ripkin and Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be considered obese

    I’m not the one usign the BMI as a reference to allow the Government to interfere. The Government is using the BMI as its reference point.

    I’d ask you to list these “subjective” ideas I have about obesity and knock them off one by one

    Get off your fat ass and scroll up then, i hit them with the first reply to your idiocy

    Thumb up 4

  65. Poosh

    By what right does the government have to impose the restrictions?

    that’s easy. By the right that the collective’s health is more important that an individual, because an individual’s rights are surpassed by that of the group. therefore it’s legitimate to impose these restrictions, it is the RIGHT of the group to dictate how the group should behave, so long as it’s by majority agreement … is what the argument probably boils down to.

    The left and most liberals don’t see the world through the same eyes as others. The individual does not own himself, he exists as a collective/community. From that warped prospective, you can see where they think the “right” comes from. They are taught, with Marxist grounding, that humans have NEVER been individuals, from the first primates they were born as collectivities, ergo, rights are the rights from a communal prospective, not individual.

    F*cked up isn’t it.

    Thumb up 8

  66. sahrab

    There is no way you can ever prove being obese is not a health risk.

    Research finds obese and thin had equal mortality rates, overweight had lower. According to your argument we should eat more
    Research finds thin and normal weights have higher mortality rates, no elevated risk in overweight and obese in men and slightly higher in obese women. Accordign to your argument men should chow down!
    Research finds overweight people have fewer deaths than normal weight. Chwo down you fast bastards!
    The CDC has even had to retract its own claims and admit Obesisty isnt as dangerous as they originally claimed

    That’s just stupid

    Maybe you should get off our fat ass and actually do some research on your own?

    Thumb up 6

  67. sahrab

    Of course lifetime health cost is going to be greater for someone who lives a decade or two longer.

    You idiocy is just to easy to debunk.

    According to the CDC’s own information people born in 2004 are expected to live more than six years longer than their parents.

    You do understand this? Even though we are living in an “Obesity Epidemic” and (this is a great one) the “number one health issue in this country” the Fat Lard Ass Kids are goign to live longer than their parents who didnt have Slurpees when they grew up as a kid.

    Thumb up 5

  68. Dave D

    Honestly, It’s starting to look like these collectivist assholes want to create universal dependency on as much socialist/collectivist bullshit as they can (Obamacare, Social Security, etc.), “modify” our behavior for our own good (dietary regulations, etc.) to minimize the cost to the collective, then move the goalposts to enslave us for a longer period of our longer lives. Is this just plain evil, or what?

    [edit] Posted the above before I read Jim’s post above. You nailed it, brother!

    Thumb up 2

  69. salinger

    I don’t believe that for one nano-second. If a Democrat put forth a whole-country food plan that Sally agreed with, he’d be demanding it become law ASAP

    Hey Jim – how many fingers am I holding up – I mean, you are psychic right? Whose framing what? I see this quite a bit here – lot’s of mind readers frequent this place.

    Rest assured – I really don’t give a fuck how many of you end up smoking through your tracheal or sucking oxygen from a tank the last decade of your life wedged into some government subsidized scooter.

    2004 are expected to live more than six years longer than their parents.

    On average of course. Medicine has come a log way – we can keep folks who have had no concern for their health alive a lot longer. Of course overweight people can expect to live at least three years less and the really overweight at least a decade less.

    Keep cherry picking those numbers and fooling yourselves though. For example, here are quotes from your articles linked above proving that obesity does not increase mortality:

    Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality,

    The researchers also confirmed that obese people and people whose weights are below normal have higher death rates than people of normal weight. But, when they asked why, they found that the reasons were different for the different weight categories.

    These are from the links YOU provided.

    Thumb up 0

  70. sahrab

    Yes they are from the links i provided, i know this because this is what i typed:

    Research finds obese and thin had equal mortality rates, overweight had lower.

    Did you refute that one?

    Nope

    Research finds thin and normal weights have higher mortality rates, no elevated risk in overweight and obese in men and slightly higher in obese women.

    You still didnt address that

    Research finds overweight people have fewer deaths than normal weight.

    And you ignored that

    The CDC has even had to retract its own claims and admit Obesisty isnt as dangerous as they originally claimed

    And we await, with baited response, your response to this.

    Oh wait instead you want to change my comments to something i never stated. Hey Salinger– how many fingers am I holding up?

    Thumb up 2

  71. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  72. CM

    Hey Jim – how many fingers am I holding up – I mean, you are psychic right? Whose framing what? I see this quite a bit here – lot’s of mind readers frequent this place.

    Yep, it’s woeful and banal. It’s one of their ‘go-to’ places when they don’t want to engage any longer. You’re complaints in this thread are completely spot on.

    Rest assured – I really don’t give a fuck how many of you end up smoking through your tracheal or sucking oxygen from a tank the last decade of your life wedged into some government subsidized scooter.

    Of course Ayn Rand herself got lung cancer (from smoking) and then secretly relied on government healthcare until she died.

    That’s easy. By the right that the collective’s health is more important that an individual, because an individual’s rights are surpassed by that of the group. therefore it’s legitimate to impose these restrictions, it is the RIGHT of the group to dictate how the group should behave, so long as it’s by majority agreement … is what the argument probably boils down to.

    The left and most liberals don’t see the world through the same eyes as others. The individual does not own himself, he exists as a collective/community. From that warped prospective, you can see where they think the “right” comes from. They are taught, with Marxist grounding, that humans have NEVER been individuals, from the first primates they were born as collectivities, ergo, rights are the rights from a communal prospective, not individual.

    F*cked up isn’t it.

    Yeah, assuming everyone just thinks in binary, because you do, is fucked up.

    So any global catastrophe (potential or certain) would fuck us all because there is no right to act collectively to stop it? Or is this the point where you acknowledge there are ‘exceptions’, and your binary unravels?

    Thumb up 0

  73. Section8

    On average of course. Medicine has come a log way – we can keep folks who have had no concern for their health alive a lot longer

    Who’s reading minds now? What makes you think these people have no concern for their health? So if a person is fat or smokes you don’t think they by extension go to the doctor, or look both ways before crossing the street? They must sleep around unprotected?

    There are all kinds of things that can put your health at risk, but we do them anyway. ALL OF US DO IT. It’s funny, if this was some story about someone proposing abstinence only because it’s proven this would prevent sexually transmitted diseases better than any other method you and your buddy CM would be having a fit about those fundies interfering with choice (which I would agree), but since there’s no religion regarding fat then demonize away. Too many people out there that want to make someone else’s problem their problem or make it a problem so they can bitch about it.

    Thumb up 4

  74. CM

    It’s funny, if this was some story about someone proposing abstinence only because it’s proven this would prevent sexually transmitted diseases better than any other method you and your buddy CM would be having a fit about those fundies interfering with choice (which I would agree), but since there’s no religion regarding fat then demonize away.

    I’ve a known problem with religion now? WTF?
    And where did I demonize fat people?
    What are you smoking?

    Thumb up 0

  75. Xetrov

    Of course Ayn Rand herself got lung cancer (from smoking) and then secretly relied on government healthcare until she died.

    She “secretly” relied on it by taking it under her legal name (Alice O’Connor)? Even if she did accept benefits (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html), what’s your point? In 1966 she said this –

    It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

    There’s no hypocrisy in declaring medicare, social security, etc. morally corrupt, and taking back the money the government took from you by force through utilizing these programs.

    Thumb up 4

  76. Poosh

    Exactly. When I was younger I actually “criticized” my friend for taking benefits after she graduated, because, though she was unemployed, her parents looked after her and she was far from poor. I said that that money was for the needy, not everyone. However she convinced me I was wrong and that her parents were forced to pay that money without their consent, thus it was perfectly fine for her to take that money, as it was her parents in the first place. She was getting back what was taken. I could not argue against that, she got me. I changed my views.

    Yeah, assuming everyone just thinks in binary, because you do, is fucked up.

    So any global catastrophe (potential or certain) would fuck us all because there is no right to act collectively to stop it? Or is this the point where you acknowledge there are ‘exceptions’, and your binary unravels?

    wtf is all this binary crap eh? Showing the foundation of your morals annoys you eh? I can barely be asked to bother. I’m not even sure what you’re talking about. If an individual or whoever is creating a global disaster – let’s say global warming is real – then someone is clearly violating the rights of multiple individuals AS INDIVIDUALS. There’s no problem there …

    Thumb up 4

  77. Poosh

    Cheers Xetrov for the link

    Ah reading it helps me understand the trick CM was trying to pull. Well, the trick he read, probably in the Guardian/Huffington Post, and then repeated here.

    Thumb up 3

  78. Poosh

    Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties.

    Excellent :p

    Thumb up 1

  79. CM

    I knew that might elicit a response from you Xetrov. ;-)

    Ann O’Connor?
    I thought it was only recently revealed? (via the “Oral History of Ayn Rand” by Scott McConnell, founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute)

    Yes I’m aware of the argument that it wasn’t hypocritical. It is pretty funny though. Did/do Rand and her supporters extend that argument to anyone else? She ended up providing good evidence that some sort of public system was/is warranted. She needed the system she despised in order to stay alive, and die less horribly. Otherwise, what would she have used to pay for the care? Could she have paid for it herself? And did she pay into the system as much as she took out?

    I understand that Evva Pryor, the social worker who helped Ayn Rand get it, said that Rand needed to get on social security because “Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out.”

    In other words, did she not end up “dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit.” did she not end up being the type of person she would have called a parasite?

    The point isn’t whether she was technically a hypocrite or not, but whether Rand espoused a political philosophy that, if actually put into practice by the state, would have made it impossible for anyone to receive the sort of government assistance that she sought and received. So it’s still fair game to discuss the untenability of her political ideals, which didn’t take into account the legitimate needs of human beings living together in a civilized society, and the most prudent and pragmatic means of satisfying those needs.

    What makes it even more interesting is that her cancer was likely the result of her own actions (denial that her smoking caused cancer), not the actions of society. Couldn’t she just admit that she knew the risks and wanted to do it anyway because she enjoyed smoking? Instead she lived in denial – perhaps in order to avoid accepting any moral responsibility for getting the disease that killed her (stealing the fruits of others’ labour instead of using her own resources and accepting the consequences of her own bad choices in life)? Isn’t accepting full responsibility for one’s choices one of the principles of her philosophy? If she fell on hard times through no fault of her own, I think the defence would sound a lot less hollow.

    Thumb up 0

  80. CM

    wtf is all this binary crap eh?

    Just because people disagree with you, you (and others) pretend they’re way off at the other end of the extreme. It’s a way of trying to make out that people who are disagree with your opinions are morons. Sometimes they are, but sometimes they’re not. Assuming they are is just lame binary thinking.

    Showing the foundation of your morals annoys you eh?

    Continually setting up straw men is pretty silly.

    If an individual or whoever is creating a global disaster – let’s say global warming is real – then someone is clearly violating the rights of multiple individuals AS INDIVIDUALS. There’s no problem there …

    I purposely didn’t mention global warming as most people hear shit their pants and run away, or start screaming loudly and put their hands over their ears. But yeah, that’s a good example.
    You’re saying climate change is not a threat to the global population, but to “multiple individuals”? WTF? What is the difference between the collective, and a collection of individuals?
    Are you suggesting those responsible for the problem will fix it, and not via coercion? If so, how does that work?

    Thumb up 0

  81. CM

    Ah reading it helps me understand the trick CM was trying to pull. Well, the trick he read, probably in the Guardian/Huffington Post, and then repeated here.

    Which is what exactly?

    Excellent :p

    What is excellent? What does that quoted section tell us? It doesn’t tell us how much she contributed to social security, or whether she NEEDED to rely on it when she got sick.

    From X’s link:

    It shows Rand fighting with her attorneys and telling them that she didn’t want to do this. She signed a power of attorney and Pryor said that she acted “whether [Ayn] agreed or not.” Pryor never actually says what actions she (Pryor) took in spite of whether Ayn “agreed or not.”

    If Rand only lost the argument because she was too sick and the POA was used to get Govt money, then much (all?) of the criticism does indeed fall over.

    Thumb up 0

  82. Xetrov

    She needed the system she despised in order to stay alive, and die less horribly.

    Try again. Her estate was worth quite a bit when she died. She didn’t “need” the system in order to stay alive. She took advantage of the system since she was forced to pay into it, per her stated philosophy. The point you’re trying to make is based on a fallacy, perpetrated by Rand’s detractors. Quite the double standard you appear to have in regard to Rand’s life, vs. what you hammer people about in regard to Global Warming. Stick to the facts.

    Thumb up 3

  83. Mississippi Yankee

    ;) cost what? $7? Of which $5 are taxes. Let’s say that someone smokes two packs a day for 40 years before he/she develops lung cancer.

    2 packs x $5 x 365, 25 days per year x 40 years = $146.100 in tax revenue. Had it been fourh grade math I would have added interest too, but since it’s just third grade I’ll pass.

    Let me ‘splain something to you ABBA-boy:

    I smoked for 40 years, bought my first pack of cigarettes in 1965, for 25¢ (in Massachusetts). That’s considerably less that your $5 figure. I quit New Years Eve 2005/2006 and although the sin tax on tobacco had risen I had been paying less that $5 a pack in my new home in Mississippi.

    A pack of fags didn’t cost $5 40 years ago and still hasn’t reached that point in many of fly-over states yet.

    Your math, much like your logic contains a whole lot of socialist drivel. Not even public school (gov’ment run) 3rd grade level.

    Thumb up 0

  84. JimK

    What is the difference between the collective, and a collection of individuals?

    Holy *shitsnacks*.

    That right there is why I will never waste one more iota of time trying to “discuss” anything with you. We see the world differently on such a fundamental level that we’ll NEVER be able to agree on anything involving politics or society or anything of any import. We may have a few likes or dislikes in common, but you and I are fundamentally different types of people.

    And frankly, I’m tired of wrestling the pig, because all that happens is I get dirty and the pig likes it.

    Thumb up 7

  85. Poosh

    Just because people disagree with you, you (and others) pretend they’re way off at the other end of the extreme.

    I just stopped reading after this, but I’ll answer this. Seeing the community/collective as taking precedence over the so-called sovereign individual, and that a theory of rights stems from the tribe, NOT the individual is *not* an extreme position in that it’s not communism or something waaay out there. The question was “by what right?” and I gave an answer.

    Thumb up 3

  86. Poosh

    WE ARE THE BORG

    YOU WILL LOWER YOUR SHIELDS AND SURRENDER YOUR SHIPS

    WE WILL ADD YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN

    YOU WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US

    RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

    Thumb up 3

  87. CM

    Try again. Her estate was worth quite a bit when she died. She didn’t “need” the system in order to stay alive. She took advantage of the system since she was forced to pay into it, per her stated philosophy. The point you’re trying to make is based on a fallacy, perpetrated by Rand’s detractors.

    I read your link after I wrote that post (because you hadn’t provided a link originally). If what is stated at your link is what happened, the criticisms are wrong.

    Quite the double standard you appear to have in regard to Rand’s life, vs. what you hammer people about in regard to Global Warming. Stick to the facts.

    I wasn’t aware of what was at your link. Now that I am, and assuming it’s correct, I’ll happily concede that the issues raised in my post disappear.

    That right there is why I will never waste one more iota of time trying to “discuss” anything with you. We see the world differently on such a fundamental level that we’ll NEVER be able to agree on anything involving politics or society or anything of any import. We may have a few likes or dislikes in common, but you and I are fundamentally different types of people.

    Of course we’d be able to agree. You’re just so very determined not to. I’m sorry that you’ve decided to barricade yourself off from different types of people and operate in an echo chamber.

    It stemmed from my response to this from Poosh:

    If an individual or whoever is creating a global disaster – let’s say global warming is real – then someone is clearly violating the rights of multiple individuals AS INDIVIDUALS. There’s no problem there …

    That’s crazy. We’re all contributing. Generations before of have as well. Steps/solutions on an individual scale can help, but there’s no way in hell we’d even get close to what’s probably needed to stop warming going over about 3 degrees by relying on individuals. Just like no individual or collection of individuals was going to sort out the ozone issue.

    And yet it was the request for clarification that got JimK’s knickers all twisted. Bizarre.

    I just stopped reading after this, but I’ll answer this.

    Yes yes, it’s all so far beneath you, etc etc. We can take that as read if you like.

    Seeing the community/collective as taking precedence over the so-called sovereign individual, and that a theory of rights stems from the tribe, NOT the individual is *not* an extreme position in that it’s not communism or something waaay out there. The question was “by what right?” and I gave an answer.

    I don’t subscribe to “the community/collective as taking precedence over the so-called sovereign individual” but I recognise that on some issues the community/collective can do things that sovereign individuals coming together voluntarily simply cannot. And some of those things may relate to issues where life as we know it is at stake. But the usual response to that is that because of the second part I must be lying about the first. I’m not. I don’t see of doing nothing to stop climate climate change so that a very select few can live in ‘freedom’ in the few livable areas on a planet which is 5 degrees warmer. Fucking up the planet on principle, because to stop would be to restrict freedom, is clearly ridiculous. How is it not?
    Undertaking measures to make the planet as liveable as possible would seem to be the best way to provide long term sustainable actual freedom for the greatest number of people.

    Thumb up 0

  88. balthazar

    Holy *shitsnacks*.

    That right there is why I will never waste one more iota of time trying to “discuss” anything with you. We see the world differently on such a fundamental level that we’ll NEVER be able to agree on anything involving politics or society or anything of any import. We may have a few likes or dislikes in common, but you and I are fundamentally different types of people.

    And frankly, I’m tired of wrestling the pig, because all that happens is I get dirty and the pig likes it.

    Exactly why i just downvote him most of the time. Unless the discussion is about something with no socialist angle to it.

    Thumb up 8

  89. sahrab

    Um, so it’s equally bad for your health to be anorexially thin as to be obese? Your point is what?

    The block of links refutes your idiocy, in entirity, that being a fatty is detrimental to your health.

    My second quote above came from this article.

    Good for you, now go back to your second quote and see if you can discern the difference between “people as a whole” and what was reported (heres a hint, men are different than women)

    Your third link says the article cannot be found when clicked on – apropos.

    Odd, all 4 links work fine when i click them. But then it would be convenient to claim they dont work if your continueing to deny information that counters your idiocy

    Thumb up 4

  90. drunkkus

    Even though power grabs of this sort scare the living shit out of me because of their implications in the long run for personal freedom, I can’t help but chuckle now and then over how quickly childish nanny-staters forget history and how nature has it’s own way of straightening things out, even politics. In case of a catastrophy that leads to a food shortage, the tin-pots like Dipshitberg or at least his idiot followers who go along with him will be the first to succumb to starvation, just like Communists during the Twentieth Century. In other words, when the Yellowstone Caldera erupts and blocks out enough sunlight to shorten the growing season for a couple years, the mayor’s own policies would be the first to turn around with a quickness and fuck him and his enablers right in their own skinny asses. And rightfully so, I might add.

    Thumb up 4

  91. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  92. Xetrov

    Bloomberg’s panel might be after your Movie Popcorn, and Milkshakes too.

    The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.

    The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

    At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

    One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

    “The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” Vladeck said.

    Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

    “There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories,” said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

    Where does it stop? How long until they start targetting jewish deli’s for the giant sandwiches? “I’m sorry, Lindy’s, that peice of cheesecake you’ve been selling for 92 years has too much sugar, and needs to go.”

    Thumb up 2

  93. sahrab

    Where does it stop?

    Thats the question we’ve been asking, and the response has been “its only soda sizes being limited”

    My guess; Bloomberg and this panel are trying to move to quickly with the nanny state bullshit. If they’d stuck with soda’s, for a bit, then moved on to popcorn/milk/whatever there’d be less outrage. But to have this come out so quickly after the soda ban, is going to cause (hopefully) outrage about the Government intrusions into our lives.

    Thumb up 3

  94. InsipiD

    Where does it stop?

    It doesn’t stop. We’ve gone from “don’t stop ’til you get enough” to “you better stop with what I’ve decided is appropriate.”

    Thumb up 0

  95. salinger

    Didn’t realize this thread was still active – been too busy to check in – but here is one final shot.

    Sarhab –

    The block of links refutes your idiocy, in entirity, that being a fatty is detrimental to your health.

    Both of these quotes come from the articles you cited. Please tell me how these quotes (from the articles you cited) support your premise that being obese (a fatty) is not detrimental to one’s health. An extra added bonus – these are the same quotes I pulled from the articles you cited – last time. I know from working with elementary kids repetition can lead to comprehension.

    quote number one:

    Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ are clear risk factors for mortality,

    What about obesity being a clear risk factor for mortality don’t you get? The fact that being underweight is also a risk is not under dispute by me. It’s a pick your poison scenario. Remember this is from the article you cited – how can this quote be interpreted as being obese is not a health risk?

    Quote number two – also from the articles you cited:

    The researchers also confirmed that obese people and people whose weights are below normal have higher death rates than people of normal weight. But, when they asked why, they found that the reasons were different for the different weight categories.

    Okay – please explain how this quote goes to further your claim that this article says being obese is not a health threat – especially the part where it says obese people have higher death rates than people of normal weight.

    I don’t think these articles say what you think they say – or maybe you’re just playing dumb to fuck with me.

    Meanwhile – you should be thrilled to know that this is now available.

    Thumb up 0

  96. bgeek

    Where does it stop?? probably when we should the bastards.

    New MEME!!!

    Don’t should until you see the whites of their eyes.
    Han should first.

    Thumb up 1