Fat Tax

Well? Should fat people get taxed because they are very ugly but still where reveaing clothes? Ok they wouldnt get taxed for that. Just for being fat. Go!

I'm split on this.

On the one hand imposing a tax on fat people may deter others and help reduce the rate of obesity in Britain which is going up and up but it would be restring peoples freedom.

On the other hand I hate fat people. :eat:

Wai- Is this real, or another of those weird hypothetical debates?

Both I guess. As far as I know it doesnt exist but some Brit MPS were proposing it.

Huh, go for it. World needs less fat.

*Obligatory juliebriggs comment goes here*

You cant really tax someone for being fat, but I'm all for making certain things that contribute to fat more highly taxed.

Let's just tax everyone that isn't white.

i say we tax the rich more

i say they should go ahead with the proposed fat tax too

and maybe they should also impose a tax on mcdonalds as well

i hate a lot of fat people too, im not so much bothered about their size it's just as you say bebop the fact they all wear revealing clothing.. add to that the smell of a fatty during summer is ghastly

a lot of my personal tax money goes towards the nhs, cant see why i should foot the bill for somebody elses gastric problems caused by not being able to stop after the first loaf of toast in the morning

Yes, and while we're at it, let's tax everyone that lives a lifestyle I don't approve of. Nothing spells freedom like "Aryans only."

Overconsumers of any kind should be taxed more. People who drive SUV's, run up electricity/water bills, and eat too much should too. You're onto something, Bebop!

While it indeed would infringe on freedoms, let us consider for a moment that there are no actual healthy values that go with being fat. Even if harsh, it'd basically be for their own f[COLOR="black"]u[/COLOR]cking benefit.

Plus they look, smell, and usually sound disgusting.

If the government can regulate our health by instilling "no smoking" policies, as well as telling us to fasten our seat belts and telling us which drugs we can and cannot use. . . why can't it tax people by weight? In certain countries you're taxed by the displacement of your engine, and we could do the same thing with people! They overconsume, creating more waste and taking things away from others (socialists, c'mon you should be going along with this!). It's funny how it's not taboo to tell someone "you're killing yourself" when they light up a cig, but you can't say "you're killing yourself" to a fat person who's eating a big mac. Just some food (lol) for thought.

[COLOR="Yellow"]If anything i say we tax churches. After all, they're selling a product just like everyone else.[/COLOR]

I say we tax schools and homeless shelters and charity groups. they're just trying to force their beliefs down everybody's throats.

I wonder if the mods will delete my and your comments because they're irrelevent to the topic and just trying to create a side argument. They do that now, you know? Bet they won't in this case :) I take that back, they might delete mine.

Would there have to be a weight limit? Some people weigh a lot but don't look fat. That would mean everyone has to go through physical evaluation every year (like taxes or something). Would that boost the economy by making people pay more money, or would it damage it by the manpower needed in places like New York and Florida?

Fat people are some of the nicest people I know. Come on- they have personality.

I agree with the fat tax as well. If people can't atleast attempt to loose weight, then whats the point of that person even living when they will keep *****ing about how much they weigh and wish it would be gone, yet not doing a **** thing about it?

If this tax were to really be brought out, then it might reduce the fatty population.

Anyways thats what I think.

@GM

Too bad not a lot of people care about personality. =/ It's sort of like video games.

Tons of people think graphics are more important than gameplay.
Tons of people think looks are more important than personality.

... What a ****ing weird analogy.

what a BS double-standard, Zeta. I bet you pop a good rod whenever a real fat fuggo swaggers into the arcade, doncha. Her "personality" just gets you going, huh? Don't feed me that crap. Everybody's shallow. The end.

Here comes the obligatory post that I'd rather get to know someone before I sleep with them! Personality gets anyone's load blown. Bull.

He could always have a fetish, BJ!

If they're going to tax people based on their size, it should only be for real inconveniences which effect everyone. Stuff like smelling bad or being ugly is subjective and isn't basis for making them pay money.

That's not what I meant.

This is why I don't frequent the War Board. :cookie:

EDIT: fukken double ninja'd

This has to be the most ridiculous debate in a long time.

There's also the definition of fat. Some [former or current] ano bigwig could say that everyone should be under a certain weight and look a certain way. A 5'0 girl is supposed to weigh 110 lbs. That's pretty thin. What about girls with more muscle but weigh more? What if someone proposes that anyone over a 20-inch waistline is fat? Wouldn't work.

Couldn't they measure girth if they were going to do that?

Maybe instead of taxing them we should force them into Over-Eaters Anonymous!

If you guys are arguing "what is fat", it's laughable that you haven't heard of bodymass indicators. And it's fun to argue such ideas. So quit being so elitist with your "this is the stupidest argument ever". If you can suggest taxing churches for providing a business, I can suggest taxing people for overconsumption.

No. I eat fatty stuff all the time yet I'm not fat. Why should I have to pay for other people's crappy metabolism?

EDIT: Bodymass indicators don't necessarily indicate fat, just mass. Muscle is denser and therefore heavier than fat, so you can technically be "overweight" and just have a lot of muscle.

[quote=Bj Blaskowitz]Everybody's shallow. The end.

Speak for yourself, I'll never seek a relationship with an attractive but shallow, stupid bitch as long as I live.

1)5'0"/110 isnt that small. most of the girls I've known that were around that height were around that weight (including one insanely hot british gymnast>:3). If you want to see small, talk to the 5'8"/95 girl I knew. SHE was small.
2)@speed: I dont plan on ever shooting anyone, why should i bu subject to gun laws?
3)@speed, part duex: appearance matters, no matter what you're going to try to say. Given two girls who have THE EXACT SAME PERSONALITY, which would you choose, the one thats hot, or the 300 pound heiffer with a big fat hairy mole on her nose and three teeth missing?
3)suggesting taxing fat people is retarded, suggesting taxing unhealthy foods is not. same concept with smoking, alcohol, etc. If its going to lead to national problems (increased cost of healthcare, etc) then its open for a luxury tax of some sort.

BMI is useless math that doesnt take into account actual content of the persons body. The simple nerdy equation they give could easily be replaced with a chart that says "people this tall should be between X and Y pounds, or you a fatty".

Recently an NFL team took BMI tests. They all came up obese. I'm talking about quarterbacks, not linebackers.

fat percentage is more accurate. If you are 25% fat, then you are fat. If you are 10% then you are normal. Or something to that effect.

But this is stupid idea. A general all around tax on people for not being the sexy size you want them to be is discriminitory and unhealthy. How many will go anarexic or bulemic the month before they are tested? How many will overdo proper exercize on top of unhealthy eating to just so they can drop down into the acceptable range? How many heart attacks will this cause? Or other unhealthy and dangerous conditions.

I will accept a fat tax on flying, maybe because it wont apply to me. A plane can only haul so much weight. Only so many people can fit inside. If you are so large that you take up 2 seats then you should PAY for 2 seats. Or better yet, you should walk to the destination. Burn off a few calories. :-*


Fat people with personality is not always true. I've known fat *****es, ive known fat sweethearts. Ive known nice skinny girls too. You need to find a good personality match first, but, a nice body gets the first attention. People notice it first. and THEN they find out the personality.

You can't go up to a fat chick and say hello and just assume shes nice.

But is it? If laws can be placed to restrict the smoking business to beneift health of it's customers why can't a similar thing be put in place to save the lives of poor fat kids?

I didn't think there was such a thing as second-hand fatness. But OK.

Your right there isn't. I gues that means we should forget about 1st hand fatness *shrug*

Smoking is a life style choice yet there are already laws and restrictions set in place for that. People can't advertise smoking on TV which is a business restriction. You have to be a certain age before legally being allowed to smoke yet it's legally ok to stuff their babies full of McDonalds processed meat which will probably do worse for them than if they actually smoked. People can't smoke in closed areas now which is good for 2nd hand smokers but what about all the people who have to look at fat people.
And it only opens the door to better health.

Oh ***. Smoking is banned in public because of second-hand smoking... meaning someone's taking in deadly toxins unwillingly because someone beside them decides to light-up. That makes sense, right? Plus, they don't even need to advertise smoking anymore. You either smoke or you don't. There's no need to promote your product because there's nothing you could say on something that will seriously harm you. You can't shine a good light on such a product, so why bother?

As for the "omg i gotta look at fat people," shut the **** up. Seriously, that's easily the stupidest thing you've said in a long time. You might as well ban or restrict EVERYTHING that may cause any slight discomfort or something that annoys you. See a tattoo that offends you? Banned. See a hair style that you don't like? Banned. See too much muscle on a weight-lifter? Banned. Too much skin, or too much bone? Banned.

Christ, that's retarded.

[QUOTE=Vampiro]Oh ***. Smoking is banned in public because of second-hand smoking... meaning someone's taking in deadly toxins unwillingly because someone beside them decides to light-up. That makes sense, right?
I know why it's banned, numb nuts. Point is if people have age and place restrions to smoke why not fast food? I think people are more accepting of a 2 month old baby eating chips than some guy lighting up near them. If the government wants people to stop being fat they need to do something about it.

[quote]Plus, they don't even need to advertise smoking anymore. You either smoke or you don't. There's no need to promote your product because there's nothing you could say on something that will seriously harm you. You can't shine a good light on such a product, so why bother?
Whether or not tobacco companies need to advertise is not the point. Point is the smoking business has advertising bans yet fatty fast foods don't. To me it's wierd a government will ban the first but not the latter when they are both damaging to health.

[quote]As for the "omg i gotta look at fat people," shut the **** up. Seriously, that's easily the stupidest thing you've said in a long time. You might as well ban or restrict EVERYTHING that may cause any slight discomfort or something that annoys you. See a tattoo that offends you? Banned. See a hair style that you don't like? Banned. See too much muscle on a weight-lifter? Banned. Too much skin, or too much bone? Banned.
Fat people are ugly. You cannot deny this. There needs to be a weight restriction on thongs. Punishable by law. If people don't have any deceny to eat better or excericse than why should they be allowed to dress down? They shouldnt. I wasn't being completly serious about that you know. I'm not wishing for some fat halocaust. It's just to me seeing a fat person bend over and pick up a pretzel is sick and is like 2nd hand fat.

Multiple-quote time I see? **** this ****. I might have argued this if one of your points wasn't about taxing fat people because you can't stand to look at them.

I never said fat people should be taxed. Jesus if you're going to argue with me you could at least know where I stand.

Replace "tax" with "laws and restrictions" then. Good ***, that really changed a lot, didn't it? Suddenly, your point isn't so flipping moronic.

lol no, it still is.

OMG I think fast food companies should have the same laws and restrions as tobacco companies! LOL it means I want large people to pay more tax.

Learn to ****ing read.

Not around fat people, around fast food companies. READ MUCH?

I actually haven't given my stance on this in the thread.

What about fat peopel with abnormally slow metabolisms due to genetic defects? Should they be taxed more? AFter all, they're just as fat and unpleasant to look at, even though they may eat nothing but salads and veggies and still look like a whale. LOL GUESS WE SHOULD TAX TEH SALADZ TWO!

If you want to place restrictions on fast food or generally terribly unhealthy foods in order to protect the health of the public, thats one thing. But yelling about how I DUN WANT 2 LOOK AT TEH FATTIES!!1! is not only childish, but exceedingly moronic as well.
Besides, if we're taxing thigns that we dont want to see... I've seen picstures of you. You'd be crushed by taxes.:D

Bebop has made himself look quite silly.

Taxing fat people for being unpleasant to look at for many people? Come on.

You know what's more silly? "People can't smoke in closed areas now which is good for 2nd hand smokers but what about all the people who have to look at fat people."

yeah. Pretty silly.

RESPECT MY RIGHT TO MOCK THOSE WHOM I DO NOT FIND APPEALING

Maybe it was all those times where you talked about how they were unpleasant to look at. Idk, thats just me.

[spoiler]Seriously, wtf. you're speeds borther, but you're a complete moron. how is that possible?[/spoiler]

[COLOR="Yellow"]LOL I WAS JOKIN THEN, IM TOTALLY SERIOUS NOW.[/COLOR] :rolleyes:

You're an idiot. I hope that when your child is born the doctor grabs it by the ankles and smashes it's head over a desk. Especially if it's fat.

[COLOR="black"][COLOR="Yellow"]LOL PEOPLE RIGHTLY ASSUMED I WAS SERIOUS ABOUT TAXING FAT PEOPLE ONLY FOR BEING FAT SINCE IT WAS WHAT I SAID IN MY FIRST POST BUT INSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ILL CALL THEM IDIOTS WHO CANT READ :rolleyes:
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Aioros][COLOR="black"][COLOR="Yellow"]LOL PEOPLE RIGHTLY ASSUMED I WAS SERIOUS ABOUT TAXING FAT PEOPLE ONLY FOR BEING FAT SINCE IT WAS WHAT I SAID IN MY FIRST POST BUT INSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ILL CALL THEM IDIOTS WHO CANT READ :rolleyes:
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Do you mean when I said this?

[quote]Well? Should fat people get taxed because they are very ugly but still where reveaing clothes?Ok they wouldnt get taxed for that. Just for being fat. Go!

I wonder what comes after that? Maybe you should go back and check. Oh and I'm not reffering to the smilie and the image.

It's easier to tell if I use a smilie and image an make a joke about hating fat people.

This thread reminds me of another thread Bebop failed massively in. I think he's trying to copy his brother but he's neither funny or good at presenting an argument.

Anyway, I don't want fast food taxed just because some people are fukken fat. I'm fairly thin, on the lower side of "normal" for my weight/height, and I eat unhealthy foods quite often because I basically live on the road or at college during the day, and the school food is awful. I don't wanna pay more because some people either can't exercise self control or just can't metabolize the fat. Besides, they can pursue happiness so long as it doesn't directly harm or infringe upon the right of others in this country and legislation that would change the sets the stage for an alarming precident for regulating personal lifstyle choices. Smoking is not a valid comparison because it is both blantantly harms the smoker and those around him/her. Eating Burger King is a potentially unhealthy activity for the eater depending on the portions they eat and their lifestyle in general. It does not, however, actually "harm" anyone else in the direct fashion smoking does.

Now, on a plane, it's different. IF you take up two seats, you should have to pay for two seats. A fat person smashing someone else in a seat they paid for is unfair, obviously, to the person being smashed. The same goes for trains or bus routes that are "private" rather than public transportation.

Really, what are tobacco companies going to advertise? What can they say about their product to hook new consumers?

Hey, I'd lose more weight in a hurry, that's for sure.

And look at how little people knew about the product.

What are you saying? It's difficult to advertise for cigerretes? It's not, provided you have a good marketted team. Just look at advertisements in general. I'm sure a tobacoo company can afford as good a marketting team as McDonalds, Burger King, Budwieser, Nintendo etc
You're probably thinking it's too hard to advetise for because of the warning restrictions they are required to put on their products by law. It doesnt. People nowadays pick up and continue smoking despite todays general knowedge of the smoking damages. It may deter a few new comers but on whole more freedom to advertise smoking with have an increased sales effect, as it will still be targetting loyal customers, new comers to smoking and possibly converting the customers of rival tobacco companies.

Right, people will smoke no matter what. Not only will it be difficult to shine their product in a good light, but it probably won't have any impact whatsoever. Those that do smoke will continue to, those that will eventually pick it up will. No one really has to be sold on it, and those that do will never buy into it anyways. Smoking isn't like any other product out there, really. So you can't compare its marketing strategies to them.

Either way, they shouldn't be allowed to ever advertise. BigMacs and the like haven't been proven to be addictive yet, nor a real killer like tobacco is. Until that's proven, I see no reason to restrict them. But if you want to use your logic, we might as well restrict just about everything - cars, electric drills, scissors, whatever.

Especially cars. Seemingly, they kill or contribute to the deaths of about 42,000 Americans annually, which is more than the flu, murders, plane crashes, lightning strikes, and anthrax combined. Oh the noes, omg hax, etc.

[quote=Lord of Spam]3)@speed, part duex: appearance matters, no matter what you're going to try to say. Given two girls who have THE EXACT SAME PERSONALITY, which would you choose, the one thats hot, or the 300 pound heiffer with a big fat hairy mole on her nose and three teeth missing?

Strawman arguement, I never said looks mean nothing, I said they don't mean everything.

[quote=Bj Blaskowitz]yeah but you'll sure settle for an only moderately annoying woman if she's attractive. Whereas if she were also ugly, you'd not give her the time of day.

This may be difficult to understand, but I don't actually find annoying women attractive. I can see a picture of a good-looking girl and think "okay, she's pretty", but that doesn't make me attracted to her. I simply cannot be attracted to a woman who's personality doesn't mesh with mine well.

On Bebop-bashing: perhaps most of you will get a clue at some point.

What the **** is second hand fat?

Like, if I'm around fat people, I'll get fat or what?

No man, you have to look at them. That's what second-hand fatness is.

You know when a 300 lb whale of women wearing a thong bends over and the flaps of fat seeps over the side? That's second hand fat.

Vamp you saying cigerretes are too hard to advertise for.
You have no advertising imagination.
A 30 strong team of professionals with a few million dollars budget doesnt.

You're saying it doesnt matter if tobacco companies advertise because the consumer of their produucet is already set in stone.
Not true. And tobacco companies disagree with you otherwise they wouldnt use other forms of advertising.

Scissors, cars and electric drills aren't dangerous by themselves. Only when misused. No matter who is holding a Bic mac it will be unhealthy, a cigerrete will be addictive and a heroin shot being dangerous.

I'm still looking for the definition of fat. Just because it hurts your eyes doesn't mean it hurts others. Some people you call fat might just be plump to someone else.

Waaaaaaaaaaaitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

Call me insane, but I don't think every fat person wears a thong and a tube top!

<3 curves

Bebop: I didn't read any of that past the first sentence. It was already dumb by that point.

[quote=Lord of Spam]<3 curves

Curves, yes. Hills? No.

soeaking as someone who currently wants to eat everything he sees, i realise now that taxing fatty foods is ****ing bull****. **** that **** man, personalresponsibilty ftw. if you're fat because you eat to much then DURR eat less.

****ing bullshat

I doubt it.

[quote=Vampiro]I doubt it.

You doubt pretty much everything, in fairness.

I never read it, so how do I know? Nothing else you've said in this thread have been right, or even intelligent. I just don't care.

Wrong about what exactly? That fat people are in fact nice to look at?

I've wrong, and this is coming from the guy who thinks tobacco companies dont need to advertise? Christ.

All right, I read your post, and I don't see how you've really proved anything right or wrong. As for the last bit, you missed the point. You want to "restrict" places like McDonalds, yet, as far as I know, they're no different than scissors. They're unhealthy, yes, but nothing that will have any affect if you're smart about it. A Big Mac is nothing like a cigarette, no matter how you look at it. Far too much is "unhealthy" meaning far too much would have to be "restricted." A Big Mac really isn't dangerous, so it's dumb to even consider putting up laws around it just because someone might suck down eight of them every day of their life. There are actually people out there that might have one a week and be content. Actually, they're probably the majority. Doesn't bother a single person too.

Also, I never said anything was set in stone. But cigarettes are just the type of thing that you either do or don't do. Those that don't probably never will. Plus, it kinda gets out of hand when they start marketing towards kids. McDonalds markets towards kids, but nuggets aren't going to hook them for the rest of their life, nor does it contain toxins, nor does it affect anyone but themselves.

Smokers smoke because they need to, because they're addicted. I don't think I've ever met anyone that's truly addicted to McDonald's fries and needs to go to the doctors to get off them. Why? Because it doesn't work that way, it doesn't contain the chemicals that cause addiction.



There, happy?

Proved you wrong like when you said tobacco companies dont need to advertise or advertising cigerrettes is too hard so they dont bother.
The British government wants to stop kid being obese and so far theyve failed. Advertisng restrictons would certainly stop kids wanting that Happy Meal toy.
Set in stone meaning who does them and who doesnt doesnt change. Point is the tobacco companies disagree with you otherwise they wouldnt carry on advertising.
I wasnt saying Bic Macs are any worse or the same as ciggeretes in terms of damage or addiction. Just that on their own they are bad. Unlike scissors which needs to be misused on purpose to have a negative affect.
The last bit has nothing to do with anything.

Multi-quote time.

You made it sound as if it being difficult is related to lack of tv adverts.
Its not the only thing that will make them fat but crap food like that is one of the main causes.
"Those that do smoke will continue to, those that will eventually pick it up will. No one really has to be sold on it, and those that do will never buy into it anyways" Wheres this probably?
High in fat is bad if you dont want kids to be obese.
I never said it was addicting. Thye might not eat a salad. And you only want another cigeretee when you force yourself to be addicted.

O I C you said probably afterwards? I gettit now
Dont use subjective evidence to support your argument. And it is one of the main causes. These causes are: bad diet and no excercise.
Lots of food is high in fat. Chips covered in oil are a food high in fat for instance. Yet they are still available to kids in school.
The choices to eat crap day in day out are choiced happening all over my country. My government wants to stop this habit. Apprantly. We're talking about obesity. Thats not 1 burger a day. Thats 1 tonne a day.
People dont become addicted to cigerettes after one. It takes more than that to form an addiction. And because you're not addicted straight away your forcing yourself too. See?

Even if all fatty foods were banned, it wouldn't solve the fat problem. It's high calories that are to blame. Eating a mountain of salad will still make someone fat.

Eating food isn't addicting. Bad eating habits are, by definition, habitual and don't require force. Cigarettes contain nicotine, an addictive substance. How in the hell are those two being related in any analogy?

Still haven't heard the definition of fat.

Yeah, I mean what is "too much" flabby tissue? The broadness of this alone is stupid enough to ignore in terms of discussing it further than that. Gay is gay, not half-gay (although there are bisexuals, same-sex relations are considered gay). The definitions can't be broad. It doesn't work that way.

Bingo. Even if someone does come up, somehow, with the perfect definition that has absolutely no loopholes, it would never be passed, nor would people stand for it. But, apparently that's not the topic anymore. It's "Should fast food restaurants have the same restrictions as tobacco companies?" or something.

You cant force anyone to do anything. But unfortunately sitting back isnt going to solve this obesity problem. Your basially saying "well if they going to be fat lets do nothing about it"
Google something called jamie's school dinners. Kids are becoming obese because of extremely bad diets and no excercise. Kids are eating junk food everyday at schools. Do you not think this is bad? Add the fact they go home and eat a pizza while watching TV. It needs to change.
You dont get addicted to cigerretes after 1. You only get an affect once your addicted.
Wasnt saying food was addictve Fate. Try to catch up.

You can work out what your weight should be in relation to your age and height. If its signicently over youre fat. End of.

And we're talking about restictions bcase none of us agree with taxing people.

If cigarettes, an addictive substance, is being discussed in relations to being fat or eating fast food, then this argument is retarded even if you didn't say food was addictive.

Height/weight charts are a joke. Muscle weighs more than fat, you idiot.

Hows it retarded? Christ your an idiot. Vamp was basically saying the fat in a burger is subjected to who is holding it, like scissors or cars. I was saying its not like cigerreates. You're a retard. I wasnt talking about addiciton, just something being bad on its own which electric drills arent. Please dont have children.

I didnt say height weight charts. I just said you can work out what you should weigh because you thought you couldnt. What you should wiegh is different on your age and height. if you disagree with that I advise you never visit a doctor. There are clinics built for that. There are machines which calculate how much fat is in your body. Lol impossible to tell what fat is. You're a dumbarse.

There are clear example of someone being fat. It's not as borderline as you think. Every age in relation to height as an ideal weight. If a 2 ft 6 year old weighs the same as a 6ft man somethings wrong.

Because the subject revolves around fat tax and it went off SOMEHOW to cigarettes. Whoever went off on how cigarettes can somehow correlate to being fat in any way was in the wrong. The two subjects aren't related in any way and even analogies couldn't help it. Therefore, it is retarded. And you're the idiot for continuing the cigarette argument.

The height/weight charts I've seen also have age factored in them. Women in between 18-25 that are 5'0" are supposed to weigh no more than 110 lbs. Yet a woman isn't considered overweight until she goes beyond 27% body fat, considerably stretching the 110. So what are women supposed to weigh before they are considered fat? Who dictates what is truly horrible to the vision and what isn't? "Ideal" to a supermodel is much different to "ideal" in Congress, so would the supermodel be able to sue any female that doesn't way under 100? Would the law allow her point of view and her damaged psyche?

THIS ARGUMENT IS RETARDED.

So she isnt considered overweight until she goes considerably over the ideal body fat she should have? No wai. Sounds fat to me. I dont get why you're having trouble figuring out what fat is when youve just said it yourself. Being 27per cent fatter than what you should is significent.
For me I would say if you're 25% overwight than you should be you are fat. I saw a show where this kid's body was actually 51% per cent fat.

As far as ciggerettes its like this. My government banned cigerrete televison ads in the interest of health. Now that same government is interested in the health of children and tackling obesisty. Why arent any restrcitons whatsoever placed on junk food ads? None at all. Alchohol adverts have restrictions enforced too. Putting restriictions on junk food advertising would prove my government cares is doing something and it will most likely have an affect.

Vamp was saying fatty foods were the same as scissors which they arent yet your not calling him a retard.

HEY REJECT, unlike cigarettes which are totally bad for you in every single way, not to mention their impact on others, fast food can be part of your regular, healthy diet. It's called moderation and/or exercise. I eat fast food several times a week, yet I maintain a healthy weight for my height.

Fat people should be banned.

FROM EVERYWHERE.

Part of your healthy diet can be once a month, you know. :/

If you're eating once a month its not a healthy diet ;-*

Almost 100% of dietritions will tell you that junk food should never be eaten lol.

So far nothing has been done about it and no matter where it starts alot of people arent going to like it but it does need to start somewhere. Simple restricitions like limitations of adverts during childrens prime time tv would certainly be a postive start. Either way my government has failed to tackle it from a school perspective so why not try a different one, or so they say? It would be harder and pretty weird to force homemakers what to and what not to cook but they can certainly use the media forms to their advantage. Personally I would rather kids had a good school meal than impose restrictions but so far it seems like the only way.
1 cigerrete at most would create a craving which isnt really the same as a hardcore 50 a day addiction that I meant.

I like the idea of school's having more healthier foods. My school has a horrible selection of food. It ranges from Pizza, box pizza, nachos, milk shakes (Just got that in last year), and the general snacks. There is an area for taking free fruits and veggies but rarely anyone does.

Anyways for the fast food business, I think it will do much better. Decreasing the fatty foods and popping in more healthier ones may help drastically, that is if people really take it serious enough to actually make an attempt to eat the other food besides the double cheeseburgers or something.

I also don't see how eating so much food would make you addicted, I can see someone wanting more, but it's far to easy to just say "hell I had enough" and just be done with it. I also hate how people call "obesity, it's a disease" You choose to be that way no matter what, if your fat that's your own doing nothing else. Yeah you may be depressed because of something, but you know flat out what your doing to your body.

Healther foods in schools would be nice and help, but what happens at home can only be controlled so much.

******* it, Jesse.

fat people are the new minorities, excpet they wont ever get civil rights

Fat people are the new majority is more like it.

governments around the world should make sure that all the fast food outlets make their meals

Most fast food meals come to around ten dollars anyways. It's still cheaper and faster than eating healthier.

I mean, look at cigarettes. Taxed to hell and back and people still pay the price. Fat people are addicted to fat foods.

I honestly don't understand that, it's a heck of a lot more expensive to eat garbage than to eat properly here, provided you know how to cook. And America has way more land to grow food per person than we do.

most of america now grows corn to make ethanol for gasoline, which is pretty useless.

what im trying to say is the only republican veiwpoint i hold is de-subsidize corn.

it's pretty expensive to eat healthy here (health food stores are grossly overpriced in my area idk about anywhere else, and generally dont care becauae i dont live there) and most people would rather have a quick bite to eat.

oh and people need to stop eating so ******* much. i workout sometimes 5 hours a day for athletics and i eat as much as the kid who plays video games all day. its pretty retarded.

This was a joke that the white dude from Dave Chapelle's Mad Real World made in his stand up. He said he has a gym membership but he doesn't go, so he's practically paying a fat tax.

yes i remember that
didnt he die

well, I didn't kill him so I wouldn't know.

What you eat doesn't matter if you just sit on your *** all day. You'll still get fat, albeit perhaps at a slower rate if you stick to healthier foods.

You can sit on your *** all day and never gain a pound if you eat all right. Assuming you don't have an abysmal metabolism.

I think they should pay more to get on flights. We're allowed 50kg of hand luggage and so are fat people. But their 50kg are taken up by one of their fucking thighs.

Eating too much fat robs calcium and causes osteoporosis. I think a simple answer is to find food that gives lots of calcium such as milk. Macdonalds should put a milkshake next to a hamburger in a poster or TV ad to hypnotise consumers about the importance of avoiding the bone-breaking disease. ;):cool: