|
On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol.
Cop are probably called due to alcohol-influenced fights/accidents/whatever more than anything else.
|
|
|
On September 08 2009 04:52 Alur wrote:He is obviously a TL member, that can't possibly be a coincidence.
O my god I am innocent!.
|
|
|
Oh god...
and wow this mother has real mental problems...
|
United States24491 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol.
What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis?
|
On September 08 2009 07:31 psion0011 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. Cop are probably called due to alcohol-influenced fights/accidents/whatever more than anything else.
So tax them for fighting or getting in accidents or whatever, not for consuming the alcohol.
|
On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis?
Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else.
|
On September 08 2009 07:58 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else.
The point is that the tax discourages the consumption of alcohol; by taxing only the drunk drivers who get into accidents, you've acquired the same amount of money, but lives may have already been lost.
|
I'm pretty sure eating 1500-2000 calories a day will help a lot more than going to the gym. Seeing as how an ordinary person would have to walk 300 miles to burn off 30,000 calories, an 800 pound person maybe 75 miles.
30,000 calories, that's like 18.75 pounds of dry food a day. If I spend $50 a week on groceries, 15 to 20 times that is $750 to $1000. 52 weeks that's up to $50,000 in food. Even if I round way down, he's still eating at least $10k to $20k in food each year. Even if you want to let him make his own decisions, give him 2000 calories a day and let him get a job to pay for the rest of his food.
|
United States24491 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:58 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else.
I was merely responding to you saying "I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke." How is that different from alcohol? I think you are being inconsistent.
|
On September 08 2009 08:01 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:58 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else. The point is that the tax discourages the consumption of alcohol; by taxing only the drunk drivers who get into accidents, you've acquired the same amount of money, but lives may have already been lost.
The consumption of alcohol isn't what we need to discourage, what we need to discourage is the drunk driving. We can't take away anyone's rights, to purchase alcohol in this case, merely because they have the potential to harm others.
|
On September 08 2009 08:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:58 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else. I was merely responding to you saying "I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke." How is that different from alcohol? I think you are being inconsistent.
It's because in many cases the mere act of smoking the cigarette is hurting those around you by polluting the air and damaging their lungs, while this is not the case for alcohol. It would be more consistent to ban the smoking of cigarettes in public, limiting it to be done on private property.
|
United States24491 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:04 igotmyown wrote:
I'm pretty sure eating 1500-2000 calories a day will help a lot more than going to the gym. Seeing as how an ordinary person would have to walk 300 miles to burn off 30,000 calories, an 800 pound person maybe 75 miles.
30,000 calories, that's like 18.75 pounds of dry food a day. If I spend $50 a week on groceries, 15 to 20 times that is $750 to $1000. 52 weeks that's up to $50,000 in food. Even if I round way down, he's still eating at least $10k to $20k in food each year. Even if you want to let him make his own decisions, give him 2000 calories a day and let him get a job to pay for the rest of his food.
1500-2000 calories would be too severe a goal for him... that's like what a 90-120 pound person should be eating? I guess it depends a bit on other factors but you know what I mean. He should slowly adjust his diet to slowly bring his weight down... and slowly phase in exercise as it becomes possible.
|
omg that's gross. well atleast the kid knows he's fat....although he really needs to do something about it.
|
On September 08 2009 02:24 Roffles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 02:23 Caller wrote:
use human fat to produce electricity
can i get nobel peace prize now You'd make a fortune in the US.
and solve the energy crisis.
|
On September 08 2009 08:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 08:04 igotmyown wrote:
I'm pretty sure eating 1500-2000 calories a day will help a lot more than going to the gym. Seeing as how an ordinary person would have to walk 300 miles to burn off 30,000 calories, an 800 pound person maybe 75 miles.
30,000 calories, that's like 18.75 pounds of dry food a day. If I spend $50 a week on groceries, 15 to 20 times that is $750 to $1000. 52 weeks that's up to $50,000 in food. Even if I round way down, he's still eating at least $10k to $20k in food each year. Even if you want to let him make his own decisions, give him 2000 calories a day and let him get a job to pay for the rest of his food. 1500-2000 calories would be too severe a goal for him... that's like what a 90-120 pound person should be eating? I guess it depends a bit on other factors but you know what I mean. He should slowly adjust his diet to slowly bring his weight down... and slowly phase in exercise as it becomes possible.
No way, 2000 calories is like for the average adult american, who's going to weigh like 180 pounds, not the average scrawny teenager.
http://www.hpathy.com/healthtools/calories-need.asp
Ok, parameters 19 years old, sedentary lifestyle, male
90 pounds, 5'0": 1509 calories
120 pounds, 5'6": 1824 calories
180 pounds, 6'0", 20 years old: 2363 calories
820 pounds, 6'0", 19 years old: 7163 calories
At a 2000 calorie diet, he'd lose 10 pounds a week, at that rate in half a year he'd be at 550 pounds. To lose 15 pounds a week, he'd have to eat nothing.
Edit: wait, that's the BMR, whatever that means. Let me recalculate
Edit: BMR is if you stayed in bed all day, in which case he's like 6000 calories.
|
On September 08 2009 02:18 Mah Buckit! wrote:
Wow! Think of that kids potential, as in energy (mgh).
You know I think taxing can diminish the amount of obese people. Since taxing of sweets was removed in Finland the consumption has doubled. Now the taxes are coming back but they could raise taxes on other fatty foods too IMO.
Actually that Stan Dorn has pretty neat idea, to raise taxes on things that are unhealthy and cause medical bills. This could well be implemented to alcohol, tobacco and drugs as they wont affect those who don´t overuse all this stuff. In other hand if these get too pricey they will create crime whereas taxing food propably won´t.
I actually almost feel bad for this kid because of his parents.
taxing products to avoid consumption is horrible government control, they are there to govern not to be our nannies.
They should also add tax to light clothing in winter, so we dont get a cold, and put huge taxes on video games so kids go out more right? -_-
|
I'm surprised the public healthcare debate hasn't filtered into this thread yet. Well I'll take care of that!
When this kid's body starts breaking down (probably his heart from pushing his blood around the world and back lol), why should my tax dollars pay for his medical bills? Should we integrate a program where mandatory amounts of exercise and proper nutrition are required to be eligible for public health care so that cases like this don't drain the system?
|
I doubt this mother is going to be deterred by having to pay an extra quarter to buy her kid a big mac. Unless you watched a different video than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2694/goodeats.jpg)
